Section of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2012 Oct;5(5):884-8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.112.973776. Epub 2012 Aug 26.
The efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is associated with the amount of CRT pacing delivered. The specific causes of CRT pacing loss and their relative frequencies remain poorly defined.
CRT patients who transmitted device data from 2006 to 2011 were screened for inclusion. Device diagnostics were analyzed using an automated algorithm to categorize CRT loss into 10 different causes. The algorithm was validated against manual adjudications using a portion of the entire cohort. There were 80 768 patients analyzed with a median time of 594 (interquartile range, 294-1003) days from implant to time of analysis. In this cohort, 40.7% of patients had <98% pacing, and 11.5% of patients had <90% pacing. For patients with <98% pacing, device diagnostics explained 55.8% of pacing loss: 30.6% atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation; 16.6% premature ventricular contractions; and 8.6% captured as episodes with at least 10 consecutive beats of CRT loss (ventricular sensing episodes). Inappropriately programmed sensed and paced atrioventricular (AV) intervals (SAV/PAV) accounted for 34.5% of all ventricular sensing episodes. As the severity of CRT loss increased, the contribution of atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation and SAV/PAV to the loss increased. Atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation accounted for >50% and premature ventricular contractions accounted for <10% of CRT loss in those with <90% CRT pacing.
CRT pacing <98% was observed in 40.7% of patients. Among those with suboptimal pacing, atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation was the most common reason for CRT pacing loss. Inappropriately programmed SAV/PAV intervals was the most common reason for episodes of sustained loss of CRT pacing. This information can help in defining more effective treatments to improve CRT delivery.
心脏再同步治疗(CRT)的疗效与 CRT 起搏的输送量有关。导致 CRT 起搏丢失的具体原因及其相对频率仍未明确定义。
筛选了 2006 年至 2011 年期间传输设备数据的 CRT 患者,以将其纳入研究。使用自动算法分析设备诊断,将 CRT 丢失分为 10 种不同的原因。该算法通过对整个队列的一部分进行手动裁决进行了验证。共分析了 80768 例患者,从植入到分析时间的中位数为 594(四分位距,294-1003)天。在该队列中,有 40.7%的患者起搏率<98%,11.5%的患者起搏率<90%。对于起搏率<98%的患者,设备诊断解释了 55.8%的起搏丢失:30.6%的房性心动过速/心房颤动;16.6%的室性早搏;8.6%的起搏丢失(心室感知事件)为至少 10 次连续 CRT 丢失的事件。不适当程控的感知和起搏的房室(AV)间期(SAV/PAV)占所有心室感知事件的 34.5%。随着 CRT 丢失程度的增加,房性心动过速/心房颤动和 SAV/PAV 对丢失的贡献增加。在起搏率<90%的患者中,房性心动过速/心房颤动占 CRT 丢失的>50%,而室性早搏占<10%。
40.7%的患者观察到 CRT 起搏<98%。在起搏效果不佳的患者中,房性心动过速/心房颤动是 CRT 起搏丢失的最常见原因。不适当程控的 SAV/PAV 间期是持续丢失 CRT 起搏的最常见原因。这些信息有助于确定更有效的治疗方法,以提高 CRT 的输送。