Bogossian Harilaos, Frommeyer Gerrit, Göbbert Kornelius, Hasan Fuad, Nguyen Quy Suu, Ninios Ilias, Mijic Dejan, Bandorski Dirk, Hoeltgen Reinhard, Seyfarth Melchior, Lemke Bernd, Eckardt Lars, Zarse Markus
Department of Cardiology and Angiology, Lüdenscheid Clinic, Märkische Clinics GmbH, Lüdenscheid, Germany.
Department of Cardiology, Witten/Herdecke University, Germany.
Clin Cardiol. 2017 Aug;40(8):575-579. doi: 10.1002/clc.22700. Epub 2017 Mar 15.
The present European guidelines suggest a diagnostic electrophysiological (EP) study to determine indication for cardiac pacing in patients with bundle branch block and unexplained syncope. We evaluated the prognostic relevance of an EP study for mortality and the development of permanent complete atrioventricular (AV) block in patients with symptomatic bifascicular block and first-degree AV block.
The HV interval is a poor prognostic marker to predict the development of permanent AV block in patients with symptomatic bifascicular block (BFB) and AV block I°.
Thirty consecutive patients (mean age, 74.8 ± 8.6 years; 25 males) with symptomatic BFB and first-degree AV block underwent an EP study before device implantation, according to current guidelines. For 53 ± 31 months, patients underwent yearly follow-up screening for syncope or higher-degree AV block.
Thirty patients presented with prolonged HV interval during the EP study (mean, 82.2 ± 20.1 ms; range, 57-142 ms), classified into 3 groups: group 1, <70 ms (mean, 62 ± 4 ms; range, 57-67 ms; n = 7), group 2, >70 to ≤100 ms (mean, 80 ± 8 ms; range, 70-97 ms; n = 18), and group 3, >100 ms (mean, 119 ± 14 ms; range, 107-142 ms; n = 5). According to the guidelines, patients in groups 2 and 3 received a pacemaker. The length of the HV interval was not associated with the later development of third-degree AV block or with increased mortality.
Our present study suggests that an indication for pacemaker implantation based solely on a diagnostic EP study with prolongation of the HV interval is not justified.
当前欧洲指南建议进行诊断性电生理(EP)检查,以确定束支传导阻滞和不明原因晕厥患者的心脏起搏指征。我们评估了EP检查对有症状双分支传导阻滞和一度房室(AV)传导阻滞患者死亡率及永久性完全性AV传导阻滞发生的预后相关性。
希氏束(HV)间期是预测有症状双分支传导阻滞(BFB)和一度AV传导阻滞患者永久性AV传导阻滞发生的不良预后指标。
根据现行指南,30例连续的有症状BFB和一度AV传导阻滞患者(平均年龄74.8±8.6岁;25例男性)在植入装置前接受了EP检查。患者接受了为期53±31个月的年度随访筛查,以检查是否有晕厥或更高程度的AV传导阻滞。
30例患者在EP检查期间出现HV间期延长(平均82.2±20.1毫秒;范围57 - 142毫秒),分为3组:第1组,<70毫秒(平均62±4毫秒;范围57 - 67毫秒;n = 7),第2组,>70至≤100毫秒(平均80±8毫秒;范围70 - 97毫秒;n = 18),第3组,>100毫秒(平均119±14毫秒;范围107 - 142毫秒;n = 5)。根据指南,第2组和第3组患者接受了起搏器植入。HV间期的长度与三度AV传导阻滞的后期发生或死亡率增加无关。
我们目前的研究表明,仅基于HV间期延长的诊断性EP检查来植入起搏器的指征是不合理的。