Stangl K, Wirtzfeld A, Alt E, Blömer H
I. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik TU München.
Z Kardiol. 1990 Jun;79(6):383-95.
Antibradycardiac pacemaker therapy has become established as one of the most effective forms of cardiological therapy for the indications AV-block, sick sinus syndrome, bradyarrhythmia, and hypersensitive carotid sinus. About 220,000 systems are implanted per year worldwide, about 32,000 in West Germany. Of the pacing modes, the fixed-rate ventricular single chamber systems (VVI) dominate with a share of almost 90%. Prognostic importance: For AV-block, the improvement of the prognosis by pacemaker therapy is unquestionable, since it increases the cumulative survival rates to 81% and 95% after 1 year and 50% to 65% after 5 years. For sick sinus syndrome, VVI-pacing proves to be a symptomatic measure, no prognostic importance can be proven. It is not conclusively clarified at present whether physiological pacing modes (AAI, DDD) have any such importance. Pacemaker therapy also has no prognostic importance for bradyarrhythmia. Hemodynamic importance: Numerous hemodynamic studies show that fixed-rate VVI-pacing fails to produce a long-term hemodynamic improvement for either an AV-block or a sick sinus syndrome. In sick sinus syndrome hemodynamic improvement can only be achieved by physiological pacing modes (AAI, DVI, DDD), whereby the increase in cardiac output is between 11% to 30%. For AV-block a long-term hemodynamic improvement can only be obtained by atrial triggered pacing modes (VAT, VDD, DDD); this is higher than the values of fixed-rate VVI-pacing by 7-25% at rest, or 10-40% under exercise. Similar results with improvements of the exercise hemodynamics between 22% and 66% are reported for rate-modulated single-chamber pacing (VVIR) for AV-block. Future trends: In the fourth decade of pacemaker therapy, developments point toward the "smart pacemaker", toward rate-modulated systems with combinations of parameters, toward rate-modulated dual-chamber systems and universal antibradycardiac and antitachycardiac systems.
抗心动过缓起搏器治疗已成为治疗房室传导阻滞、病态窦房结综合征、缓慢性心律失常和颈动脉窦过敏等适应症最有效的心脏治疗方法之一。全球每年植入约220,000套系统,在西德约为32,000套。在起搏模式中,固定频率心室单腔系统(VVI)占主导地位,份额近90%。预后重要性:对于房室传导阻滞,起搏器治疗对预后的改善是毋庸置疑的,因为它可使1年后的累积生存率提高到81%,5年后提高到95%,5年后提高到50%至65%。对于病态窦房结综合征,VVI起搏被证明是一种对症措施,尚无预后重要性的证据。目前尚未明确生理起搏模式(AAI、DDD)是否具有此类重要性。起搏器治疗对缓慢性心律失常也无预后重要性。血流动力学重要性:大量血流动力学研究表明,固定频率VVI起搏对房室传导阻滞或病态窦房结综合征均未能产生长期的血流动力学改善。在病态窦房结综合征中,只有通过生理起搏模式(AAI、DVI、DDD)才能实现血流动力学改善,心输出量可增加11%至30%。对于房室传导阻滞,只有通过心房触发起搏模式(VAT、VDD、DDD)才能获得长期的血流动力学改善;这比固定频率VVI起搏在静息时的值高7-25%,运动时高10-40%。对于房室传导阻滞,速率适应性单腔起搏(VVIR)的运动血流动力学改善率在22%至66%之间,也有类似结果报道。未来趋势:在起搏器治疗的第四个十年,发展方向是“智能起搏器”、参数组合的速率适应性系统、速率适应性双腔系统以及通用的抗心动过缓和抗心动过速系统。