Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Gill Heart Institute, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY and VA Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky.
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Gill Heart Institute, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY and VA Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky.
Am J Cardiol. 2018 Nov 15;122(10):1598-1603. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.08.001. Epub 2018 Aug 21.
Characteristics of conduction disorders after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have been well described. In contrast, limited data are available on the incidence, treatment trends, and prognostic impact of conduction disorders after non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Using the National Inpatient Sample database, we compared the characteristics and outcomes of conduction disorders in patients with a primary diagnosis of STEMI versus NSTEMI between 2010 and 2014. Conduction disorders were classified into high-degree AV block (HDAVB), consisting of complete AV block or Mobitz type II second-degree AV block, and sinoatrial node dysfunction (SND). We identified 135,468 STEMI patients and 281,928 NSTEMI patients. In contrast to the STEMI cohort where HDAVB was more common than SND (2.4% vs 0.5%), SND was observed more often in the NSTEMI cohort, presenting in 2,417 patients (0.9%), followed by HDAVB in 1,745 patients (0.6%). In patients who developed HDAVB, NSTEMI patients were more likely to undergo permanent pacemaker implantation than STEMI patients (30.0% vs 11.6%; p < 0.001). The rate of permanent pacemaker implantation for SND was comparable between STEMI and NSTEMI patients (33.9% vs 30.5%; p = 0.10). In the NSTEMI cohort, patients who developed HDAVB had higher in-hospital mortality than those without any major conduction disorders (16.6% vs 3.8%; p < 0.001). In conclusion, SND was more common than HDAVB in the NSTEMI cohort, in contrast to the predominance of HDAVB observed in the STEMI cohort. About one-third of patients who developed HDAVB after NSTEMI underwent pacemaker implantation, suggesting lower rates of spontaneous resolution of HDAVB, when compared with STEMI patients.
特征性的传导障碍后 ST 段抬高心肌梗死 (STEMI) 已经描述得很好。相比之下,关于传导障碍的发生率、治疗趋势和非 ST 段抬高心肌梗死 (NSTEMI) 预后影响的有限的数据。使用国家住院病人样本数据库,我们比较了 2010 年至 2014 年期间,原发性诊断为 STEMI 与 NSTEMI 的患者中传导障碍的特征和结局。传导障碍分为高度房室传导阻滞 (HDAVB),包括完全性房室传导阻滞或莫氏Ⅱ型二度房室传导阻滞,和窦房结功能障碍 (SND)。我们确定了 135468 例 STEMI 患者和 281928 例 NSTEMI 患者。与 STEMI 组相比,HDAVB 更为常见,占 2.4%,而 SND 更为常见,占 0.5%,而在 NSTEMI 组中观察到的 SND 更为常见,有 2417 例患者(0.9%),其次是 HDAVB 患者 1745 例(0.6%)。在发生 HDAVB 的患者中,NSTEMI 患者比 STEMI 患者更有可能接受永久性起搏器植入 (30.0% vs 11.6%;p < 0.001)。STEMI 和 NSTEMI 患者的 SND 永久性起搏器植入率相当 (33.9% vs 30.5%;p = 0.10)。在 NSTEMI 组中,发生 HDAVB 的患者住院死亡率高于无任何主要传导障碍的患者 (16.6% vs 3.8%;p < 0.001)。总之,与 STEMI 组中 HDAVB 占主导地位相比,NSTEMI 组中 SND 更为常见。约三分之一的 NSTEMI 后发生 HDAVB 的患者接受了起搏器植入,这表明与 STEMI 患者相比,HDAVB 的自发缓解率较低。