Lane Jem D, Whittaker-Axon Sarah, Schilling Richard J, Lowe Martin D
Department of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Barts Heart Centre, St Bartholomew's Hospital, West Smithfield, London, EC1A 7BE, United Kingdom; Department of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Heart Hospital, 16-18 Westmoreland St, Marylebone, London, W1G 8PH, United Kingdom.
Department of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Barts Heart Centre, St Bartholomew's Hospital, West Smithfield, London, EC1A 7BE, United Kingdom.
Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 2019 Mar-Apr;19(2):49-54. doi: 10.1016/j.ipej.2018.08.004. Epub 2018 Aug 23.
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead parameters may deteriorate due to right ventricular (RV) disease such as arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), with implications for safe delivery of therapies. We compared ICD and CRT-D (cardiac resynchronisation therapy-defibrillator) lead parameters in patients with ARVC and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM).
RV lead sensing (R wave amplitude) and pacing (threshold and amplitude-pulse width product (APWP)), left ventricular (LV) pacing (APWP), and imaging parameter trends were assessed in 18 patients with ARVC and 18 with DCM.
R wave amplitude did not change significantly over time in either group (over 5 years, ARVC -0.4 mV, 95% CI -3.8-3.0 mV; DCM -1.8 mV, 95% CI -5.0-1.3 mV). Within ARVC group, divergent trends were seen according to lead position. DCM patients experienced an increase in RV lead threshold (+1.1 V over 5 years, 95% CI + 0.5 to +1.7 V) and RV APWP (+0.48 Vms over 5 years, 95% CI + 0.24 to +0.71 Vms); ARVC patients had no change. ARVC patients had a higher LVEF at baseline than DCM patients (52 vs 20%, p < 0.001), though LVEF decreased over time for the former, while increasing for the latter. TAPSE did not change over time for ARVC patients.
Lead parameters in ARVC patients were stable over medium-term follow up. In DCM patients, RV lead threshold and RV and LV APWP increased over time. These differential responses for DCM and ARVC were not explained by imaging indices, and may reflect distinct patterns of disease progression.
植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)导线参数可能因右心室(RV)疾病如致心律失常性右心室心肌病(ARVC)而恶化,这对安全进行治疗有影响。我们比较了ARVC患者和扩张型心肌病(DCM)患者的ICD和心脏再同步化治疗除颤器(CRT-D)导线参数。
评估了18例ARVC患者和18例DCM患者的右心室导线感知(R波振幅)和起搏(阈值及振幅-脉宽乘积(APWP))、左心室(LV)起搏(APWP)以及成像参数趋势。
两组患者的R波振幅随时间均无显著变化(5年期间,ARVC组为-0.4 mV,95%置信区间为-3.8至3.0 mV;DCM组为-1.8 mV,95%置信区间为-5.0至1.3 mV)。在ARVC组内,根据导线位置观察到不同的趋势。DCM患者右心室导线阈值升高(5年期间升高1.1 V,95%置信区间为+0.5至+1.7 V)且右心室APWP升高(5年期间升高0.48 Vms,95%置信区间为+0.24至+0.71 Vms);ARVC患者则无变化。ARVC患者基线时的左心室射血分数(LVEF)高于DCM患者(52%对20%,p<0.001),不过前者的LVEF随时间下降,而后者升高。ARVC患者的三尖瓣环平面收缩期位移(TAPSE)随时间无变化。
ARVC患者的导线参数在中期随访期间保持稳定。在DCM患者中,右心室导线阈值以及右心室和左心室APWP随时间升高。DCM和ARVC的这些不同反应无法通过成像指标解释,可能反映了不同的疾病进展模式。