Rosenqvist M, Brandt J, Schüller H
Am Heart J. 1986 Feb;111(2):292-7. doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(86)90142-0.
Treatment with conventional ventricular pacing does not seem to influence the natural course in patients with sinus node disease (SND). In the present study the natural course of SND was compared in patients treated with ventricular (VVI) and those treated with atrial (AAI) pacing. The study population comprised 168 patients, 89 with atrial and 79 with ventricular pacing. The two groups were comparable with respect to clinical characteristics, degree of severity of SND, and length of follow-up period (average 2 years). Development of chronic atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure was significantly more common in patients with ventricular than in those with atrial pacing (30% vs 4%, p less than 0.001; 23% vs 7%, p less than 0.01). Second-degree atrioventricular block developed in 4% of the atrially paced patients. Thus, atrial pacing is apparently superior to ventricular pacing in patients with SND.
采用传统心室起搏治疗似乎不会影响窦房结疾病（SND）患者的自然病程。在本研究中，对接受心室（VVI）起搏治疗的患者和接受心房（AAI）起搏治疗的患者的SND自然病程进行了比较。研究人群包括168例患者，89例接受心房起搏，79例接受心室起搏。两组在临床特征、SND严重程度和随访时间长度（平均2年）方面具有可比性。慢性心房颤动和充血性心力衰竭的发生在心室起搏患者中明显比心房起搏患者更常见（30%对4%，p<0.001；23%对7%，p<0.01）。4%的心房起搏患者发生了二度房室传导阻滞。因此，对于SND患者，心房起搏显然优于心室起搏。
