Coumel P, Leclercq J F, Leenhardt A
Cardiology Department, Hôpital Lariboisière, Paris, France.
Am Heart J. 1987 Oct;114(4 Pt 2):929-37. doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(87)90590-4.
Two methods are available for exploring arrhythmias in cardiac patients who are at risk of sudden death: Holter monitoring and invasive electrophysiology. Despite numerous studies, the predictive value of these techniques, in terms of prognosis, remains poor for many reasons. Neither technique considered individually can give reliable prognostic indications simply because each technique addresses different issues which are only partially involved in the mechanism of sudden death. Invasive electrophysiology, by artificially provoking an arrhythmia, detects the potential substrate which may ultimately lead to lethal arrhythmias. Although this is an important technique it is insufficient because merely identifying the substrate for an arrhythmia does not necessarily mean that arrhythmia will occur. On the other hand, ambulatory ECG allows monitoring of spontaneous arrhythmias which may be considered as potential initiating factors in arrhythmias. However, even if initiating factors and potential substrates are present, they are not sufficient conditions to cause lethal arrhythmias to occur. When there is an opportunity to scrutinize the mechanism of arrhythmias which are indeed lethal, as in sudden death, it appears that the lethal event results from the intervention of a new factor which was either absent or not considered during preceding investigations. In coronary patients, curiously, ischemia more often provokes cardiac arrest or an electromechanical dissociation rather than a ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. Sudden death is not infrequently of iatrogenic origin, because of the arrhythmogenic effect of powerful antiarrhythmic drugs. More important, ventricular fibrillation often occurs in the setting of a progressively increased sympathetic tone, which explains either the particular seriousness of a previously known arrhythmia or the occurrence of an arrhythmia which was never before observed.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
对于有猝死风险的心脏病患者,有两种方法可用于探索心律失常:动态心电图监测和有创电生理检查。尽管进行了大量研究,但由于多种原因,这些技术在预后方面的预测价值仍然很差。单独考虑这两种技术,都无法给出可靠的预后指标,因为每种技术解决的是不同问题,而这些问题只是部分参与了猝死机制。有创电生理检查通过人工诱发心律失常,检测可能最终导致致命性心律失常的潜在基质。虽然这是一项重要技术,但并不充分,因为仅仅识别心律失常的基质并不一定意味着心律失常会发生。另一方面,动态心电图允许监测可能被视为心律失常潜在起始因素的自发性心律失常。然而,即使存在起始因素和潜在基质,它们也不是导致致命性心律失常发生的充分条件。当有机会仔细研究确实致命的心律失常机制时,比如在猝死中,似乎致命事件是由一个新因素的干预导致的,而这个因素在之前的调查中要么不存在,要么未被考虑。奇怪的是,在冠心病患者中,缺血更常引发心脏骤停或电机械分离,而不是室性心动过速或颤动。猝死常常源于医源性原因,因为强效抗心律失常药物有致心律失常作用。更重要的是,心室颤动常常发生在交感神经张力逐渐增加的情况下,这解释了之前已知心律失常的特殊严重性或从未观察到的心律失常的发生。(摘要截选至250词)