Kallryd A, Kruse I, Rydén L
Department of Cardiology, Central Hospital, Skövde, Sweden.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1989 Jun;12(6):954-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1989.tb05033.x.
A consecutive series of 66 patients (males = 32; mean age +/- SD = 71 +/- 9 years) given atrial inhibited pacemakers for sick sinus nodes were followed to study the incidence of lead failures, chronic atrial tachyarrhythmias, and atrioventricular conduction disturbances. The need for rate responsive pacing was also assessed. Pre and postoperative investigation could include carotid sinus massage, Holter monitoring, exercise testing, and invasive electrophysiology. The mean follow-up time +/- SD was 32 +/- 29 months (median = 26 months). Three patients (5%) had their pacemakers replaced due to lead failures (loss of sensing = 2; exit block = 1). Two pacemakers (3%) were replaced after 5 and 22 months due to atrial fibrillation. Four patients (6%) received new pacemakers because of development of second-degree or complete atrioventricular block after 1, 6, 12, and 31 months, respectively. During exercise, most patients (76%) responded with an increase in sinus rate at least as marked as that achievable with the currently available rate responsive pacemakers. Assuming careful patient selection, atrial inhibited pacing is well suited for many patients with sinus node dysfunction and preserved atrioventricular conduction. There is a limited need for rate responsive pacemakers in these patients.
对连续66例(男性32例;平均年龄±标准差=71±9岁)因病态窦房结综合征植入心房抑制型起搏器的患者进行随访,以研究导线故障、慢性房性快速心律失常和房室传导障碍的发生率。还评估了对频率应答性起搏的需求。术前和术后检查可包括颈动脉窦按摩、动态心电图监测、运动试验和有创电生理检查。平均随访时间±标准差为32±29个月(中位数=26个月)。3例(5%)患者因导线故障(感知丧失2例;出口阻滞1例)更换了起搏器。2例(3%)患者分别在5个月和22个月后因房颤更换了起搏器。4例(6%)患者分别在1个月、6个月、12个月和31个月后因发生二度或完全性房室传导阻滞而接受了新的起搏器。在运动期间,大多数患者(76%)窦性心率增加,其幅度至少与目前可用的频率应答性起搏器所能达到的幅度相当。假设患者选择谨慎,心房抑制型起搏非常适合许多窦房结功能障碍且房室传导保留的患者。这些患者对频率应答性起搏器的需求有限。