Chiale P A, Pastori J D, Sánchez R A, Elizari M V, Rosenbaum M B
Service of Cardiology, Ramos Mejía Hospital, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990 Mar 1;15(3):633-9. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(90)90638-6.
The mechanisms responsible for intermittent bundle branch block are still under debate. The role of the time-dependent behavior of the slow calcium channel has recently been emphasized. To test this hypothesis and ascertain the possible involvement of the fast sodium channel, the effects of the slow calcium channel blocker verapamil and the fast sodium channel blocker procainamide were compared in 10 patients with intermittent bundle branch block. All 10 patients showed bundle branch block during spontaneous sinus rhythm. Maneuvers to slow cardiac rate (that is, carotid sinus massage, Valsalva maneuver) were performed to identify normal conduction as well as phase 4 bundle branch block. Thus, the ranges of diastolic intervals (RR) resulting in phase 3 (tachycardia-dependent) bundle branch block, phase 4 (bradycardia-dependent) bundle branch block and normal conduction were measured in two control studies performed before intravenous administration of verapamil (control 1) and procainamide (control 2) and at the peak effect of both drugs. In the control studies, all 10 patients showed phase 3 bundle branch block, whereas phase 4 bundle branch block occurred in only 4 patients. The ranges of phase 3 bundle branch block, phase 4 bundle branch block and normal conduction were very similar in control studies 1 and 2. The phase 3 bundle branch block range was slightly shortened by verapamil (983 +/- 83.5 ms in control 1; 930 +/- 69.4 ms at the peak effect of verapamil), whereas phase 4 bundle branch block remained unchanged. In contrast, conduction was systematically worsened by procainamide.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
间歇性束支传导阻滞的发病机制仍存在争议。近来,慢钙通道时间依赖性行为的作用受到了重视。为验证这一假说并确定快钠通道可能的参与情况,对10例间歇性束支传导阻滞患者比较了慢钙通道阻滞剂维拉帕米和快钠通道阻滞剂普鲁卡因胺的效果。所有10例患者在窦性心律时均表现出束支传导阻滞。采用减慢心率的方法(即颈动脉窦按摩、瓦尔萨尔瓦动作)来识别正常传导以及4相束支传导阻滞。因此,在静脉注射维拉帕米(对照1)和普鲁卡因胺(对照2)前以及两种药物达到最大效应时进行的两项对照研究中,测量了导致3相(心动过速依赖性)束支传导阻滞、4相(心动过缓依赖性)束支传导阻滞和正常传导的舒张间期(RR)范围。在对照研究中,所有10例患者均表现出3相束支传导阻滞,而只有4例患者出现4相束支传导阻滞。对照研究1和2中,3相束支传导阻滞、4相束支传导阻滞和正常传导的范围非常相似。维拉帕米使3相束支传导阻滞范围略有缩短(对照1中为983±83.5毫秒;维拉帕米最大效应时为930±69.4毫秒),而4相束支传导阻滞保持不变。相比之下,普鲁卡因胺使传导系统性恶化。(摘要截断于250字)