Rubaj Andrzej, Rucinski Piotr, Sodolski Tomasz, Bilan Andrzej, Gulaj Marcin, Dabrowska-Kugacka Alicja, Kutarski Andrzej
Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Lublin, Poland..
Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2010 Oct;15(4):353-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1542-474X.2010.00391.x.
We studied the acute effect of pacing at the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT), right ventricular apex (RVA) and simultaneous RVA and RVOT-dual-site right ventricular pacing (DuRV) in random order on systolic function using impedance cardiography.
Seventy-three patients (46 males), aged 52-89 years (mean 71.4 years) subjected to routine dual chamber pacemaker implantation with symptomatic chronic II or atrioventricular block, were included to the study.
DuRV pacing resulted in significantly higher cardiac index (CI) in comparison to RVOT and RVA and CI at RVOT was higher than at RVA pacing (2.46 vs 2.35 vs 2.28; P < 0.001). In patients with ejection fraction >50% significantly higher CI was observed during DuRV pacing when compared to RVOT and RVA pacing and there was no difference of CI between RVOT and RVA pacing (2.53 vs 2.41 vs 2.37; P < 0.001). In patients with ejection fraction <50%, DuRV and RVOT pacing resulted in significantly higher CI in comparison to RVA pacing while no difference in CI was observed between RVOT and DuRV pacing (2.28 vs 2.21 vs 2.09; P < 0.001).
Dual-site right ventricular pacing in comparison to RVA pacing improved cardiac systolic function. RVOT appeared to be more advantageous than RVA pacing in patients with impaired, but not in those with preserved left ventricular function. No clear hemodynamic benefit of DuRV in comparison to RVOT pacing in patients with impaired systolic function was observed.
我们采用阻抗心动图,以随机顺序研究了右心室流出道(RVOT)、右心室心尖部(RVA)起搏以及同时进行RVA和RVOT双部位右心室起搏(DuRV)对收缩功能的急性影响。
纳入73例患者(46例男性),年龄52 - 89岁(平均71.4岁),因症状性慢性II度或房室传导阻滞接受常规双腔起搏器植入术,并纳入本研究。
与RVOT和RVA起搏相比,DuRV起搏导致心脏指数(CI)显著更高,且RVOT起搏时的CI高于RVA起搏(2.46对2.35对2.28;P < 0.001)。在射血分数>50%的患者中,与RVOT和RVA起搏相比,DuRV起搏时观察到CI显著更高,且RVOT和RVA起搏之间的CI无差异(2.53对2.41对2.37;P < 0.001)。在射血分数<50%的患者中,与RVA起搏相比,DuRV和RVOT起搏导致CI显著更高,而RVOT和DuRV起搏之间的CI无差异(2.28对2.21对2.09;P < 0.001)。
与RVA起搏相比,双部位右心室起搏改善了心脏收缩功能。在左心室功能受损的患者中,RVOT似乎比RVA起搏更具优势,但在左心室功能保留的患者中并非如此。在收缩功能受损的患者中,未观察到DuRV与RVOT起搏相比有明显的血流动力学益处。