Suppr超能文献

心室固有偏好(VIP™)和心室自动夺获(VAC)算法在起搏器患者中的有效性:验证研究结果。

Effectiveness of Ventricular Intrinsic Preference (VIP™) and Ventricular AutoCapture (VAC) algorithms in pacemaker patients: Results of the validate study.

作者信息

Yadav Rakesh, Jaswal Aparna, Chennapragada Sridevi, Kamath Prakash, Hiremath Shirish M S, Kahali Dhiman, Anand Sumit, Sood Naresh K, Mishra Anil, Makkar Jitendra S, Kaul Upendra

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, India.

Department of Cardiac Pacing & Electrophysiology, Fortis Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi, India.

出版信息

J Arrhythm. 2016 Feb;32(1):29-35. doi: 10.1016/j.joa.2015.07.004. Epub 2015 Oct 1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Several past clinical studies have demonstrated that frequent and unnecessary right ventricular pacing in patients with sick sinus syndrome and compromised atrio-ventricular conduction (AVC) produces long-term adverse effects. The safety and efficacy of two pacemaker algorithms, Ventricular Intrinsic Preference™ (VIP) and Ventricular AutoCapture (VAC), were evaluated in a multi-center study in pacemaker patients.

METHODS

We evaluated 80 patients across 10 centers in India. Patients were enrolled within 15 days of dual chamber pacemaker (DDDR) implantation, and within 45 days thereafter were classified to either a compromised AVC (cAVC) arm or an intact AVC (iAVC) arm based on intrinsic paced/sensed (AV/PV) delays. In each arm, patients were then randomized (1:1) into the following groups: VIP OFF and VAC OFF (Control group; CG), or VIP ON and VAC ON (Treatment Group; TG). Subsequently, the AV/PV delays in the CG groups were mandatorily programmed at 180/150 ms, and to up to 350 ms in the TG groups. The percentage of right ventricular pacing (%RVp) evaluated at 12-month post-implantation follow-ups were compared between the two groups in each arm. Additionally, in-clinic time required for collecting device data was compared between patients programmed with the automated AutoCapture algorithm activated (VAC ON) vs. the manually programmed method (VAC OFF).

RESULTS

Patients randomized to the TG with the VIP algorithm activated exhibited a significantly lower %RVp at 12 months than those in the CG in both the cAVC arm (39±41% vs. 97±3%; p=0.0004) and the iAVC arm (15±25% vs. 68±39%; p=0.0067). In-clinic time required to collect device data was less in patients with the VAC algorithm activated. No device-related adverse events were reported during the year-long study period.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study cohort, the use of the VIP algorithm significantly reduced the %RVp, while the VAC algorithm reduced in-clinic time needed to collect device data.

摘要

背景

过去的几项临床研究表明,病窦综合征和房室传导受损(AVC)患者频繁且不必要的右心室起搏会产生长期不良影响。在一项针对起搏器患者的多中心研究中,评估了两种起搏器算法,即心室固有优先(VIP)算法和心室自动阈值夺获(VAC)算法的安全性和有效性。

方法

我们在印度的10个中心评估了80例患者。患者在双腔起搏器(DDDR)植入后15天内入组,此后45天内根据固有起搏/感知(AV/PV)延迟分为房室传导受损(cAVC)组或房室传导正常(iAVC)组。在每组中,患者然后被随机(1:1)分为以下几组:VIP关闭且VAC关闭(对照组;CG),或VIP开启且VAC开启(治疗组;TG)。随后,CG组的AV/PV延迟被强制编程为180/150毫秒,TG组则高达350毫秒。比较每组中两组在植入后12个月随访时评估的右心室起搏百分比(%RVp)。此外,比较了激活自动阈值夺获算法(VAC开启)编程的患者与手动编程方法(VAC关闭)的患者收集设备数据所需的门诊时间。

结果

在cAVC组(39±41%对97±3%;p = 0.0004)和iAVC组(15±25%对68±39%;p = 0.0067)中,激活VIP算法随机分配到TG组的患者在12个月时的%RVp均显著低于CG组。激活VAC算法的患者收集设备数据所需的门诊时间更少。在为期一年的研究期间未报告与设备相关的不良事件。

结论

在我们的研究队列中,使用VIP算法显著降低了%RVp,而VAC算法减少了收集设备数据所需的门诊时间。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a417/4759122/23730bba99f2/gr1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验