Suppr超能文献

间隔部起搏与右心室心尖部起搏:一项前瞻性、随机研究。

Pacing of the interventricular septum versus the right ventricular apex: a prospective, randomized study.

机构信息

Cardiology Service, University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.

出版信息

Eur J Intern Med. 2012 Oct;23(7):621-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2012.03.012. Epub 2012 Apr 11.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular (LV) function may be impaired by right ventricular (RV) apical pacing. The interventricular septum is an alternative pacing site, but randomized data are limited. Our aim was to compare ejection fraction (EF) resulting from pacing the interventricular septum versus the RV apex.

METHODS

RV lead implantation was randomized to the apex or the mid-septum. LVEF and RVEF were determined at baseline and after 1 and 4 years by radionuclide angiography.

RESULTS

We enrolled 59 patients, of whom 28 were randomized to the apical group and 31 to the septal group, with follow-up available in 47 patients at 1 year and 33 patients at 4 years. LVEF in the apical and in the septal groups was 55 ± 8% vs. 46 ± 15% (p=0.021) at 1 year and 53 ± 12% vs. 47 ± 15% (p=0.20) at 4 years. Echocardiography confirmed a mid-septal lead position in only 54% of patients in the septal group, with an anterior position in the remaining patients. In the septal group, LVEF decreased significantly in patients with an anterior RV lead (-10.0 ± 7.7%, p=0.003 at 1 year and -8.0 ± 9.5%, p=0.035 at 4 years), but not in patients who had a mid-septal lead. Left intraventricular dyssynchrony was significantly increased in case of an anterior RV lead. RVEF was not significantly impaired by RV pacing, regardless of RV lead position.

CONCLUSIONS

Pacing at the RV septum confers no advantage in terms of ventricular function compared to the apex. Furthermore, inadvertent placement of the RV lead in an anterior position instead of the mid-septum results in reduced LV function.

摘要

背景

右心室(RV)心尖部起搏可能导致左心室(LV)功能受损。室间隔是另一种起搏部位,但随机数据有限。我们的目的是比较起搏室间隔与 RV 心尖部对射血分数(EF)的影响。

方法

RV 导联植入随机分为心尖部和室间隔部。通过放射性核素血管造影术在基线和 1 年和 4 年后分别测定 LVEF 和 RVEF。

结果

我们纳入了 59 例患者,其中 28 例随机分为心尖部组,31 例分为室间隔部组,47 例患者在 1 年时和 33 例患者在 4 年时获得随访。心尖部组和室间隔部组的 LVEF 在 1 年时分别为 55±8%和 46±15%(p=0.021),在 4 年时分别为 53±12%和 47±15%(p=0.20)。在室间隔部组中,只有 54%的患者心脏超声确认 RV 导联位于室间隔部,其余患者的位置为前位。在室间隔部组中,前位 RV 导联的患者 LVEF 显著下降(1 年时下降-10.0±7.7%,p=0.003;4 年时下降-8.0±9.5%,p=0.035),而中隔部导联的患者 LVEF 无明显下降。前位 RV 导联时左室内不同步明显增加。无论 RV 导联位置如何,RV 起搏均不会显著损害 RVEF。

结论

与 RV 心尖部起搏相比,RV 间隔部起搏在心室功能方面没有优势。此外,RV 导联意外置于前位而不是中隔部会导致 LV 功能下降。

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