Suppr超能文献

间接法与直接法测定窦房传导时间的比较

Comparison of indirect and direct methods for determination of sinoatrial conduction time.

作者信息

Hluchý J, Milovský V, Sámel M, Pavlovic M

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, State Hospital, Bratislava, Czechoslovakia.

出版信息

Eur Heart J. 1989 Mar;10(3):256-67. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a059474.

Abstract

We have performed an electrophysiologic study (EPS) in 18 subjects (mean age 21 +/- 17 years) with normal sinus node function (group A) and in 15 patients (mean age 43 +/- 26 years) with sinus node dysfunction (group B). Three extrastimulus methods (both Strauss and Kirkorian methods and our modification of the extrastimulus method) were carried out in 31 patients of both groups and sinoatrial conduction times (SACTSTR, SACTKIR,SACTMOD) could be estimated in 27 of them. SACT by the Narula method (SACTNAR) was assessed in 25 patients of both groups. Sinus node electrograms (SNEs) were attempted in 22 patients and were obtained in 17 of them. Among the indirect methods, by comparison with SACTSTR in group A the best correlation was for SACTMOD (r = 0.81) and the weakest for SACTKIR (r = 0.67); there was no significant difference between SACTs estimated by Strauss and other methods. In group B the weakest correlation was also for SACTKIR (r = 0.68), whereas the correlations for both SACTMOD and SACTNAR were similar (r = 0.72 and r = 0.74, respectively); in this group SACT was significantly underestimated only by the Kirkorian method (P less than 0.01; sensitivity of 45%). By our method sensitivity was 82%, similar to both the Strauss and Narula methods (92 and 92%, respectively). By comparison of indirect methods with the direct measurement of SACT we have found similar good correlations for the Strauss, our own, and the Narula methods in group A (r = 0.81, r = 0.75, r = 0.79, respectively) and in group B (r = 0.81, r = 0.86, and r = 0.72, respectively); here too the weakest correlation was, in both groups, for the Kirkorian method (r = 0.67, and r = 0.68, respectively). The SACT in group B was the more significantly underestimated (P less than 0.001). Significant underestimation of SACT occurred also by our method and the Strauss method (P less than 0.01, and P less than 0.001, respectively), whereas the Narula method did not significantly underestimate the directly measured SACT. From the SNEs after atrial pacing we have shown the limitation of the Kirkorian method and observed the conspicuous beat-to-beat variability of SACTdirect' as the possible explanation of chaotic pattern of return cycles by the extrastimulus methods in some patients of group B.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

摘要

我们对18名窦房结功能正常的受试者(平均年龄21±17岁,A组)和15名窦房结功能障碍的患者(平均年龄43±26岁,B组)进行了电生理研究(EPS)。对两组的31名患者采用了三种额外刺激方法(施特劳斯法、基尔科里安法以及我们改良的额外刺激法),其中27名患者可估算出窦房传导时间(SACTSTR、SACTKIR、SACTMOD)。对两组的25名患者评估了用纳鲁拉法测定的窦房传导时间(SACTNAR)。对22名患者尝试记录窦房结电图(SNE),其中17名成功记录。在间接方法中,与A组的SACTSTR相比,SACTMOD的相关性最佳(r = 0.81),SACTKIR的相关性最弱(r = 0.67);施特劳斯法与其他方法估算的SACT之间无显著差异。在B组中,相关性最弱的也是SACTKIR(r = 0.68),而SACTMOD和SACTNAR的相关性相似(分别为r = 0.72和r = 0.74);在该组中,仅基尔科里安法显著低估了SACT(P<0.01;敏感性为45%)。我们的方法敏感性为82%,与施特劳斯法和纳鲁拉法相似(分别为92%和92%)。通过将间接方法与SACT的直接测量结果进行比较,我们发现在A组中施特劳斯法、我们自己的方法和纳鲁拉法的相关性都很好(分别为r = 0.81、r = 0.75、r = 0.79),在B组中也是如此(分别为r = 0.81、r = 0.86和r = 0.72);在两组中,相关性最弱的同样是基尔科里安法(分别为r = 0.67和r = 0.68)。B组的SACT被低估得更显著(P<0.001)。我们的方法和施特劳斯法也显著低估了SACT(分别为P<0.01和P<0.001),而纳鲁拉法未显著低估直接测量的SACT。通过心房起搏后的SNE,我们揭示了基尔科里安法的局限性,并观察到SACTdirect的明显逐搏变异性,这可能是B组部分患者额外刺激法返回周期呈混沌模式的原因。(摘要截选至400字)

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验