Lau C P, Linker N J, Butrous G S, Ward D E, Camm A J
Department of Cardiological Sciences, St. George's Hospital Medical School, London, United Kingdom.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1989 Aug;12(8):1324-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1989.tb05046.x.
The effects of myopotential interference on unipolar rate responsive pacemakers were assessed in 22 patients. Six types of pacemakers (from four manufacturers) were studied: five TX2 (QT sensing), seven Biorate (five RDP3 and two MB-1, respiratory rate sensing), seven Activitrax (activity sensing), two Medtronic 2503 (dP/dt sensing), and one Sensolog P703 (activity sensing). Provocative tests using arm exercises were performed in both VVI and rate responsive modes. At nominal sensitivity settings (1.8-2.5 mV), 55% of these patients were myopotential positive for at least 1 provocative test. Pressing the palms together was found to be the most sensitive provocative test. Rate response was achieved with treadmill exercise (all patients), hyperventilation (RDP3 and MB-1) and tapping (Activitrax) or wobbling the pacemaker in its pocket (Sensolog). During continued rate acceleration, myopotential interference was induced by arm exercises. The duration of inhibition was shorter when the provocative tests were performed during rate response compared to that occurred at rest. Short periods of myopotential interference resulted in temporary inhibition of pacing but rate response continued immediately on removal of the interference. In one patient with a RDP3 pacemaker, a prolonged episode of myopotential interference during treadmill exercise resulted in reversion of the pacemaker to the interference mode. Appropriate adjustment of the sensitivity setting effectively controlled the symptoms in most patients. However, one patient with a QT sensing pacemaker and symptomatic myopotential interference required programming to the VVT pacing mode. Two out of five patients with RDP3 required pacemaker replacement because of uncontrolled myopotential interference.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
对22例患者评估了肌电位干扰对单极频率应答起搏器的影响。研究了六种类型的起搏器(来自四个制造商):五个TX2(QT感知)、七个Biorate(五个RDP3和两个MB - 1,呼吸频率感知)、七个Activitrax(活动感知)、两个美敦力2503(dP/dt感知)和一个Sensolog P703(活动感知)。在VVI和频率应答模式下均进行了使用手臂运动的激发试验。在标称灵敏度设置(1.8 - 2.5 mV)下,这些患者中有55%在至少一次激发试验中肌电位呈阳性。发现双手掌心相压是最敏感的激发试验。通过跑步机运动(所有患者)、过度通气(RDP3和MB - 1)以及轻敲(Activitrax)或在口袋中晃动起搏器(Sensolog)可实现频率应答。在持续的频率加速过程中,手臂运动会诱发肌电位干扰。与静息时相比,在频率应答期间进行激发试验时,抑制持续时间更短。短时间的肌电位干扰导致起搏暂时抑制,但干扰消除后频率应答立即恢复。在一名使用RDP3起搏器的患者中,跑步机运动期间长时间的肌电位干扰导致起搏器转换为干扰模式。适当调整灵敏度设置可有效控制大多数患者的症状。然而,一名使用QT感知起搏器且有症状性肌电位干扰的患者需要程控为VVT起搏模式。五名RDP3患者中有两名因无法控制的肌电位干扰而需要更换起搏器。(摘要截断于250字)