Mollazadeh R, Mohimi L, Zeighami M, Fazelifar A, Haghjoo M
Cardiac Electrophysiology Research Center, Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
J Cardiovasc Dis Res. 2012 Jul;3(3):200-3. doi: 10.4103/0975-3583.98892.
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Pacemaker syndrome was mainly described as the sequel of atrioventricular (AV) dyssynchrony. The role of interventricular (VV) dyssynchrony has not been studied yet. The aims of this study were to noninvasively assess the hemodynamic effects of different ventricular pacing sites with and without AV and VV dyssynchrony and to observe the patients for clinical symptoms of the pacemaker syndrome during the AV sequential and ventricular-only pacing modes.
Between March 2009 and February 2010, 40 patients (28 men; mean age, 61 ± 15 years) with biventricular (BiV) device were enrolled. Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures (BP) of 5 beats were measured 5 minutes after each mode change using fingertip plethysmography. The patients were also observed for the occurrence of symptoms suggestive of the pacemaker syndrome, including dyspnea, palpitations, dizziness, presyncope, and syncope.
There was no difference in mean systolic BP among different ventricular-only pacing modes (all P = NS). However, mean systolic BP was significantly higher in AV sequential biventricular pacing (DDD-BiV) compared with ventricular-only pacing modes (all P<0.05). In addition, there was no difference in terms of pacemaker syndrome-related symptoms following mode change from DDD-BiV to DDD-RV or DDD-LV (all P>0.05).
The present study showed that the non-AV sequential BiV and LV pacing may have no significant benefit compared with RV pacing in terms of systolic blood pressure. However, there was marked hemodynamic improvement following mode change to AV sequential BiV pacing. This study may have important implications for pathogenesis of pacemaker syndrome.
背景/目的:起搏器综合征主要被描述为房室(AV)不同步的后遗症。室间(VV)不同步的作用尚未得到研究。本研究的目的是在有或无AV和VV不同步的情况下,无创评估不同心室起搏部位的血流动力学效应,并在房室顺序起搏和仅心室起搏模式下观察患者是否出现起搏器综合征的临床症状。
2009年3月至2010年2月,纳入40例植入双心室(BiV)装置的患者(28例男性;平均年龄61±15岁)。在每次模式改变后5分钟,使用指尖体积描记法测量5次心跳的平均收缩压和舒张压(BP)。还观察患者是否出现提示起搏器综合征的症状,包括呼吸困难、心悸、头晕、先兆晕厥和晕厥。
不同仅心室起搏模式之间的平均收缩压无差异(所有P=无显著性差异)。然而,与仅心室起搏模式相比,房室顺序双心室起搏(DDD-BiV)时的平均收缩压显著更高(所有P<0.05)。此外,从DDD-BiV模式改为DDD-RV或DDD-LV模式后,与起搏器综合征相关的症状无差异(所有P>0.05)。
本研究表明,在收缩压方面,非房室顺序的BiV和左心室起搏与右心室起搏相比可能没有显著益处。然而,改为房室顺序BiV起搏模式后血流动力学有明显改善。本研究可能对起搏器综合征的发病机制具有重要意义。