Sulke A N, Pipilis A, Henderson R A, Bucknall C A, Sowton E
Department of Cardiology, Guy's Hospital.
Br Heart J. 1990 Jul;64(1):25-31. doi: 10.1136/hrt.64.1.25.
The heart rate response of 59 patients aged 17-79 years implanted with seven different types of rate responsive pacemakers was evaluated during graded exercise treadmill testing and during standardised daily activities. The heart rate response in patients with pacemakers was compared with the chronotropic response in 20 healthy controls of similar age and sex distribution who performed identical protocols. All pacemaker types adequately simulated the control heart rate response during the graded exercise treadmill test except during the early stages of exercise. However, during everyday activities, the response of ventricular rate responsive (VVIR) pacemakers was varied. Activity sensing systems rapidly overresponded to staircase descent, to changes in walking speed, and to suitcase lifting with the pacemaker arm, and these systems did not respond to mental stress. "Physiological" sensors (QT and minute ventilation units) responded slowly to rapid changes in physiological demand. The QT pacemaker patients did respond to mental stress but showed a paradoxical increase in rate during the recovery phases of burst exercise protocols such as staircase ascent/descent and walking deceleration. Dual chamber pacemakers in VDD, DDD, and DDDR modes most closely simulated the normal chronotropic response during everyday activities. Graded exercise treadmill testing, in isolation, may not be the best way to asses or program the heart rate response in patients with the heart rate adaptive pacemakers because changes in heart rate during everyday activities may deviate considerably from the normal sinus response despite satisfactory simulation of the normal chronotropic response during treadmill testing.
在分级运动平板试验和标准化日常活动期间,对59名年龄在17至79岁、植入了七种不同类型频率应答起搏器的患者的心率反应进行了评估。将起搏器患者的心率反应与20名年龄和性别分布相似、执行相同方案的健康对照者的变时性反应进行了比较。除运动早期外,所有起搏器类型在分级运动平板试验期间均能充分模拟对照心率反应。然而,在日常活动期间,心室率应答(VVIR)起搏器的反应存在差异。活动传感系统对下楼梯、步行速度变化以及用起搏器手臂提行李箱反应迅速且过度,而对精神压力无反应。“生理”传感器(QT和分钟通气单元)对生理需求的快速变化反应缓慢。QT起搏器患者对精神压力有反应,但在诸如上/下楼梯和步行减速等爆发性运动方案的恢复阶段心率出现反常增加。VDD、DDD和DDDR模式的双腔起搏器在日常活动期间最接近模拟正常的变时性反应。单独进行分级运动平板试验可能不是评估或程控心率适应性起搏器患者心率反应的最佳方法,因为尽管在平板试验期间能令人满意地模拟正常变时性反应,但日常活动期间的心率变化可能与正常窦性反应有很大偏差。