Knudsen Maria Bisgaard, Thøgersen Anna Margrethe, Hjortshøj Søren Pihlkjaer, Riahi Sam
Department of Cardiology and Center for Cardiovascular Research, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2013 Nov;24(11):1255-8. doi: 10.1111/jce.12211. Epub 2013 Jul 19.
Patients treated with a temporary pacemaker (TPM) due to atrioventricular (AV) block are often monitored after discontinuation of AV node blocking drugs to evaluate the indication for permanent pacing. However, the impact of drug discontinuation is sparsely documented. We investigated to what extent drug discontinuation abolished the need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation.
All hospital records of patients who received a TPM at Aalborg Hospital, Denmark, between January 2000 and March 2011 (n = 575) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with AV block who were treated with a TPM and concomitant cessation of drug therapy were included if there was no other underlying mechanism causing the AV block. AV blocking drugs included antiarrhythmic agents classes II-IV and digoxin. Fifty-five patients fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Forty-seven patients had an indication for a PPM at the initial hospital admission, despite drug discontinuation. Of the remaining 8 patients who were discharged without a PPM, 3 subsequently experienced events: 2 had recurrence of AV block requiring a PPM, and 1 experienced syncope. Thus, in total, 49 (89%) patients had a final indication for a permanent pacemaker (PPM). Of patients receiving beta-blocker monotherapy, 26 (96%) had an indication for a PPM. TPM implantation was complicated by infection or displacement in 11% of cases.
The vast majority of patients treated with a TPM due to AV block and who receive beta-blockers alone or in combination with digoxin have a final indication for a PPM despite cessation of drug treatment. TPM are frequently associated with complications.
因房室传导阻滞接受临时起搏器(TPM)治疗的患者,在停用房室结阻滞剂后常需进行监测,以评估永久起搏的指征。然而,关于药物停用的影响记录甚少。我们研究了药物停用在多大程度上消除了植入永久起搏器(PPM)的必要性。
回顾性分析了2000年1月至2011年3月期间在丹麦奥尔堡医院接受TPM治疗的患者的所有医院记录(n = 575)。如果不存在其他导致房室传导阻滞的潜在机制,则纳入接受TPM治疗且同时停止药物治疗的房室传导阻滞患者。房室阻滞剂包括II-IV类抗心律失常药物和地高辛。55名患者符合我们的纳入标准。尽管停用了药物,但47名患者在初次入院时仍有植入PPM的指征。其余8名未植入PPM出院的患者中,3名随后发生了事件:2名患者房室传导阻滞复发需要植入PPM,1名患者发生了晕厥。因此,总共有49名(89%)患者最终有植入永久起搏器(PPM)的指征。接受β受体阻滞剂单药治疗的患者中,26名(96%)有植入PPM的指征。11%的病例中TPM植入出现感染或移位并发症。
绝大多数因房室传导阻滞接受TPM治疗且单独或联合使用地高辛的β受体阻滞剂患者,尽管停止了药物治疗,但最终仍有植入PPM的指征。TPM常伴有并发症。