Mitsuoka T, Kenny R A, Yeung T A, Chan S L, Perrins J E, Sutton R
Department of Cardiology, Westminster Hospital, London.
Br Heart J. 1988 Oct;60(4):338-47. doi: 10.1136/hrt.60.4.338.
The effects of DDD (fully automatic) and VVI (ventricular demand) pacing modes on exercise tolerance, symptom diary cards, and Holter monitoring were investigated in a randomised double blind crossover study of 16 patients who had had DDD pacemakers implanted because of frequent syncope. Eight patients presented with sick sinus syndrome and, with one exception, retrograde atrioventricular conduction and eight age and sex matched patients presented with 2:1 or complete atrioventricular block. Maximal symptom limited exercise in those with atrioventricular block was significantly higher after one month of DDD pacing than after VVI pacing. In those with sick sinus syndrome, however, maximal effort tolerance was not significantly different for the two pacing modes. In all but one patient with sick sinus syndrome sinus rhythm developed during exercise in VVI pacing. For both VVI and DDD modes maximal atrial rates were significantly lower in those with sick sinus syndrome. Palpitation and general wellbeing were significantly improved during DDD pacing in the eight patients with sick sinus syndrome. Shortness of breath was improved by DDD pacing in the eight patients with atrioventricular block but not in those with sick sinus syndrome. Holter monitoring showed that sick sinus syndrome patients remained in paced rhythm, either DDD or VVI, for most of the 24 hour period. DDD pacing was better than VVI pacing in sick sinus syndrome with retrograde atrioventricular conduction. Despite their ability to show sinus rhythm and inhibit their pacemakers on exercise patients with sick sinus syndrome are just as likely to have symptomatic benefit from DDD pacing as patients with atrioventricular block.
在一项针对16例因频繁晕厥而植入DDD起搏器的患者的随机双盲交叉研究中,研究了DDD(全自动)和VVI(心室按需)起搏模式对运动耐量、症状记录卡和动态心电图监测的影响。8例患者患有病态窦房结综合征,除1例例外,均有逆行房室传导;另外8例年龄和性别匹配的患者患有2:1或完全性房室传导阻滞。房室传导阻滞患者在DDD起搏1个月后的最大症状限制运动明显高于VVI起搏后。然而,在病态窦房结综合征患者中,两种起搏模式下的最大努力耐量没有显著差异。除1例病态窦房结综合征患者外,所有患者在VVI起搏运动期间均出现窦性心律。对于VVI和DDD模式,病态窦房结综合征患者的最大心房率均显著降低。8例病态窦房结综合征患者在DDD起搏期间心悸和总体健康状况明显改善。8例房室传导阻滞患者在DDD起搏时呼吸急促有所改善,但病态窦房结综合征患者没有。动态心电图监测显示,病态窦房结综合征患者在24小时的大部分时间内保持DDD或VVI起搏心律。在伴有逆行房室传导的病态窦房结综合征中,DDD起搏优于VVI起搏。尽管病态窦房结综合征患者能够显示窦性心律并在运动时抑制起搏器,但他们与房室传导阻滞患者一样,可能从DDD起搏中获得症状改善。