Dorveaux L, Heddle W, Jones M, Tonkin A
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1985 Sep;8(5):646-55. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1985.tb05876.x.
The atrioventricular node (AVN) has been modeled by relating output (A2H2 or H1H2) to input (A1A2) where A and H are atrial and His bundle electrograms during fixed rate atrial pacing (A1A1) or with an extrastimulus (A2). (Formula: see text) This study examined this model in 61 nonselected patients, specifically for AVN (in)stability and the possibility of multiple pathways. After programmed atrial stimulation at two basic cycle lengths of 600 ms and 462 ms, A1H1, A2H2 and H1H2 were digitized and plotted as a function of A1A2. Seven of 104 trials were rejected as SD. A1H1 was greater than 15 ms, suggesting AVN instability. Another 26 and 34 plots, respectively, of A2H2 and H1H2 were rejected because of inadequate data. In the remainder, goodness of fit of the single exponentials was tested statistically in three ways: R2, the runs test, and the Kendall rank coefficient test. Results were compared with an electrophysiologist who examined plots for one or more pathways (either discontinuous curves or slope change in a continuous curve). Single exponentials were successfully fitted (by runs test) in 44/71 and 34/63 of A2H2 and H1H2 plots, respectively, usually in accordance with the cardiologist. Discordance between computations and the cardiologist could be attributed to data scatter and lack of a sufficiently rigid stimulation protocol. The identification of bifurcation points in the presence of multiple pathways, particularly when manifest as a change in slope (approximately 6% of trials) rather than discontinuity of plots (approximately 20% of trials) remains an outstanding problem.
房室结(AVN)的模型是通过将输出(A2H2或H1H2)与输入(A1A2)相关联来建立的,其中A和H分别是固定频率心房起搏(A1A1)或有额外刺激(A2)时的心房电图和希氏束电图。(公式:见正文)本研究在61例未经挑选的患者中检验了该模型,特别针对房室结的(不)稳定性以及多径路的可能性。在600 ms和462 ms这两个基本周期长度下进行程控心房刺激后,对A1H1、A2H2和H1H2进行数字化处理,并绘制为A1A2的函数。104次试验中有7次因标准差问题被排除。A1H1大于15 ms,提示房室结不稳定。另外,分别有26次和34次A2H2和H1H2的绘图因数据不足而被排除。在其余的试验中,用三种方法对单指数曲线的拟合优度进行了统计学检验:R2、游程检验和肯德尔等级系数检验。将结果与一位电生理学家进行了比较,该电生理学家检查了是否存在一条或多条径路(要么是不连续曲线,要么是连续曲线中的斜率变化)。单指数曲线分别在44/71和34/63的A2H2和H1H2绘图中成功拟合(通过游程检验),通常与心脏病专家的判断一致。计算结果与心脏病专家之间的不一致可能归因于数据离散以及缺乏足够严格的刺激方案。在存在多径路的情况下识别分叉点,尤其是当表现为斜率变化(约6%的试验)而非绘图不连续(约20%的试验)时,仍然是一个突出的问题。