Occhetta Eraldo, Quirino Gianluca, Baduena Lara, Nappo Rosaria, Cavallino Chiara, Facchini Emanuela, Pistelli Paolo, Magnani Andrea, Bortnik Miriam, Francalacci Gabriella, Dell'Era Gabriele, Plebani Laura, Marino Paolo
Eraldo Occhetta, Rosaria Nappo, Emanuela Facchini, Andrea Magnani, Miriam Bortnik, Gabriella Francalacci, Gabriele Dell'Era, Laura Plebani, Paolo Marino, Cardiology Department, AOU Maggiore della Carità, 28100 Novara, Italy.
World J Cardiol. 2015 Aug 26;7(8):490-8. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v7.i8.490.
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the permanent high interventricular septal pacing in a long term follow up, as alternative to right ventricular apical pacing.
We retrospectively evaluated: (1) 244 patients (74 ± 8 years; 169 men, 75 women) implanted with a single (132 pts) or dual chamber (112 pts) pacemaker (PM) with ventricular screw-in lead placed at the right ventricular high septal parahisian site (SEPTAL pacing); (2) 22 patients with permanent pacemaker and low percentage of pacing (< 20%) (NO pacing); (3) 33 patients with high percentage (> 80%) right ventricular apical pacing (RVA). All patients had a narrow spontaneous QRS (101 ± 14 ms). We evaluated New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, quality of life (QoL), 6 min walking test (6MWT) and left ventricular function (end-diastolic volume, LV-EDV; end-systolic volume, LV-ESV; ejection fraction, LV-EF) with 2D-echocardiography.
Pacing parameters were stable during follow up (21 mo/patient). In SEPTAL pacing group we observed an improvement in NYHA class, QoL score and 6MWT. While LV-EDV didn't significantly increase (104 ± 40 mL vs 100 ± 37 mL; P = 0.35), LV-ESV slightly increased (55 ± 31 mL vs 49 ± 27 mL; P = 0.05) and LV-EF slightly decreased (49% ± 11% vs 53% ± 11%; P = 0.001) but never falling < 45%. In the RVA pacing control group we observed a worsening of NYHA class and an important reduction of LV-EF (from 56% ± 6% to 43% ± 9%, P < 0.0001).
Right ventricular permanent high septal pacing is safe and effective in a long term follow up evaluation; it could be a good alternative to the conventional RVA pacing in order to avoid its deleterious effects.
通过长期随访评估永久性高位室间隔起搏作为右心室心尖部起搏替代方案的安全性和有效性。
我们进行了回顾性评估:(1)244例患者(年龄74±8岁;男性169例,女性75例),植入单腔(132例)或双腔(112例)起搏器,心室螺旋电极置于右心室高位间隔希氏束旁部位(间隔起搏);(2)22例永久性起搏器且起搏比例低(<20%)的患者(无起搏);(3)33例右心室心尖部起搏比例高(>80%)的患者(RVA)。所有患者自发QRS波均窄(101±14毫秒)。我们采用二维超声心动图评估纽约心脏协会(NYHA)心功能分级、生活质量(QoL)、6分钟步行试验(6MWT)及左心室功能(舒张末期容积,LV-EDV;收缩末期容积,LV-ESV;射血分数,LV-EF)。
随访期间(每位患者21个月)起搏参数稳定。在间隔起搏组,我们观察到NYHA心功能分级、QoL评分及6MWT有所改善。虽然LV-EDV未显著增加(104±40毫升对100±37毫升;P = 0.35),但LV-ESV略有增加(55±31毫升对49±27毫升;P = 0.05),LV-EF略有下降(49%±11%对53%±11%;P = 0.001),但从未降至<45%。在RVA起搏对照组,我们观察到NYHA心功能分级恶化,LV-EF显著降低(从56%±6%降至43%±9%,P<0.0001)。
右心室永久性高位间隔起搏在长期随访评估中安全有效;为避免传统RVA起搏的有害影响,它可能是一个很好的替代方案。