Suppr超能文献

经冠状窦行单部位心室起搏治疗三尖瓣疾病。

Single-site ventricular pacing via the coronary sinus in patients with tricuspid valve disease.

机构信息

Cardiovascular Division, Washington University, School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid Ave, Campus Box 8086, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

出版信息

Europace. 2018 Apr 1;20(4):636-642. doi: 10.1093/europace/euw422.

Abstract

AIMS

To evaluate coronary sinus single-site (CSSS) left ventricular pacing in adult patients with normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) when traditional right ventricular lead implantation is not feasible or is contraindicated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 23 patients with tricuspid valve surgery/disease who received a CSSS ventricular pacing lead to avoid crossing the tricuspid valve. Two matched control populations were obtained from patients receiving (i) conventional right ventricular single-site (RVSS) leads and (ii) coronary sinus leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CSCRT). Main outcomes of interest were lead stability, electrical lead parameters and change in LVEF during long-term follow-up. Successful CSSS pacing was accomplished in all 23 patients without any procedural complications. During the 5.3 ± 2.8-year follow-up 22/23 (95.7%) leads were functional with stable pacing and sensing parameters, and 1/23 (4.3%) was extracted for unrelated reasons. Compared to CSSS leads, the lead revision/abandonment was similar with RVSS leads (Hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03, 22.0), but was higher with CSCRT leads (HR 7.41, 95% CI 1.30, 139.0). There was no difference in change in LVEF between CSSS and RVSS groups (-2.4 ± 11.0 vs. 1.5 ± 12.8, P = 0.76), but LVEF improved in CSCRT group (11.2 ± 16.5%, P = 0.002). Fluoroscopy times were longer during implantation of CSSS compared to RVSS leads (25.6 ± 24.6 min vs. 12.3 ± 18.6 min, P = 0.049).

CONCLUSION

In patients with normal LVEF, single-site ventricular pacing via the coronary sinus is a feasible, safe and reliable alternative to right ventricular pacing.

摘要

目的

评估在传统右心室导联植入不可行或禁忌的情况下,正常左心室射血分数(LVEF)的成年患者行冠状窦单部位(CSSS)左心室起搏的效果。

方法和结果

我们对 23 例因三尖瓣疾病/手术而行 CSSS 心室起搏导联植入以避免跨瓣的患者进行了回顾性分析。从接受(i)传统右心室单部位(RVSS)导联和(ii)心脏再同步治疗(CSCRT)冠状窦导联的患者中获得了 2 个匹配的对照组。主要观察终点是导线稳定性、电导线参数和长期随访期间 LVEF 的变化。23 例患者均成功完成 CSSS 起搏,无任何手术并发症。在 5.3±2.8 年的随访中,22/23(95.7%)的导联功能稳定,起搏和感知参数正常,1/23(4.3%)因非相关原因取出。与 CSSS 导联相比,RVSS 导联的导线修订/废弃率相似(风险比(HR)0.87,95%置信区间(CI)0.03,22.0),但 CSCRT 导联更高(HR 7.41,95%CI 1.30,139.0)。CSSS 和 RVSS 组之间 LVEF 的变化没有差异(-2.4±11.0 与 1.5±12.8,P=0.76),但 CSCRT 组 LVEF 改善(11.2±16.5%,P=0.002)。与 RVSS 导联相比,CSSS 导联植入时透视时间更长(25.6±24.6 分钟与 12.3±18.6 分钟,P=0.049)。

结论

在 LVEF 正常的患者中,经冠状窦行单部位心室起搏是一种可行、安全和可靠的右心室起搏替代方法。

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