Suppr超能文献

左心室起搏向量程控在心脏再同步治疗除颤器患者管理膈神经刺激和/或升高的左心室起搏阈值中的临床疗效:来自 Efface Phrenic Stim 研究的见解。

Clinical efficacy of left ventricular pacing vector programmability in cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator patients for management of phrenic nerve stimulation and/or elevated left ventricular pacing thresholds: insights from the Efface Phrenic Stim study.

机构信息

Universitätsklinikum Leipzig AÖR, Medizinische Klinik I, Liebigstraße 20, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.

出版信息

Europace. 2012 Jun;14(6):826-32. doi: 10.1093/europace/eur412. Epub 2012 Jan 25.

Abstract

AIMS

Elevated left ventricular (LV) pacing thresholds or phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) might be possible reasons for absence of continuous and effective biventricular stimulation. This study investigated the benefit and clinical efficacy of the ability to choose one out of three different LV pacing vectors for the management of suboptimal LV pacing thresholds and PNS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This prospective, observational multicentre study enrolled 132 patients (Pts) implanted with a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator, that offers three LV pacing vectors: (i) Bipolar; (ii) LVtip ↔ RVcoil; (iii) LVring ↔ RVcoil (RV = right ventricular). Left ventricular pacing thresholds and PNS thresholds were obtained in sitting and left lateral body position for all programmable LV pacing vectors at hospital discharge and follow up (FU). In 97%, a bipolar transvenous LV lead was successfully implanted. In 87% of Pts at least one acceptable pacing vector could be identified that provides good pacing threshold (≤ 2.5 V at 5 ms) and acceptable margin to PNS (≥ 2:1). This is an increase of 18% compared with conventional bipolar systems (74%) with two LV vectors and of 25% compared with unipolar systems (70%). The LVtip ↔ RVcoil vector provided the best LV pacing thresholds, but the highest rate of PNS.

CONCLUSIONS

The programmability of LV pacing vectors is a powerful feature to avoid PNS and obtain acceptable LV pacing thresholds. In order to retain reprogramming options for LV vectors during FU, LV pacing leads with at least two electrodes should be chosen whenever possible.

摘要

目的

左心室(LV)起搏阈值升高或膈神经刺激(PNS)可能是导致连续有效双心室起搏缺失的原因。本研究旨在探讨为管理LV 起搏阈值不佳和 PNS,选择三种不同 LV 起搏向量之一的能力的获益和临床疗效。

方法和结果

这项前瞻性、观察性多中心研究纳入了 132 名植入心脏再同步治疗除颤器的患者,该除颤器提供了三种 LV 起搏向量:(i)双极;(ii)LVtip ↔ RVcoil;(iii)LVring ↔ RVcoil(RV = 右心室)。在出院时和随访时(FU),所有可程控的 LV 起搏向量均在坐姿和左侧卧位时测量 LV 起搏阈值和 PNS 阈值。在 97%的患者中,成功植入了双极经静脉 LV 导联。在 87%的患者中,至少可以识别出一种可接受的起搏向量,该向量提供了良好的起搏阈值(≤2.5 V,5 ms)和可接受的 PNS 余量(≥2:1)。与常规双极系统(74%)的两个 LV 向量相比,这增加了 18%,与单极系统(70%)相比,增加了 25%。LVtip ↔ RVcoil 向量提供了最佳的 LV 起搏阈值,但 PNS 发生率最高。

结论

LV 起搏向量的程控性是避免 PNS 和获得可接受的 LV 起搏阈值的有力特征。为了在 FU 期间保留 LV 向量的程控选项,应尽可能选择至少带有两个电极的 LV 起搏导联。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验