Buntyn Robert W, Patel Vraj, Lewis Hope N, Aung Thein T, Mukerji Vaskar
Internal Medicine, Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, USA.
Cardiology, Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, USA.
Cureus. 2024 Dec 6;16(12):e75241. doi: 10.7759/cureus.75241. eCollection 2024 Dec.
Permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is the standard of care in patients with complete heart block (CHB) and second-degree type II atrioventricular (AV) block irrespective of patient symptoms when the conduction abnormality is irreversible. CHB generally constitutes a medical emergency that can be fatal if not urgently treated. This is in contrast to first-degree AV block and second-degree type I AV block, which require PPM implantation only in very special circumstances. While second-degree type II AV block is considered to be at high risk for progression to CHB, this does not occur with first-degree and second-degree type I AV blocks. Here, we present a patient who demonstrated over a number of years a progression from first-degree to second-degree type I AV block and then, quite unexpectedly, to CHB. Despite multiple discussions of the benefits of PPM implantation with cardiology staff, the patient elected to forgo the procedure. This case discusses patient-centered care and the therapeutic dilemma that can develop when there is an incongruence between the principles of beneficence and patient autonomy.
对于患有完全性心脏传导阻滞(CHB)和二度II型房室(AV)传导阻滞的患者,无论其症状如何,只要传导异常不可逆,植入永久性起搏器(PPM)就是治疗的标准。CHB通常是一种医疗紧急情况,如果不紧急治疗可能会致命。这与一度AV传导阻滞和二度I型AV传导阻滞形成对比,后两者仅在非常特殊的情况下才需要植入PPM。虽然二度II型AV传导阻滞被认为进展为CHB的风险很高,但一度和二度I型AV传导阻滞不会出现这种情况。在此,我们介绍一位患者,该患者在数年时间里从一度AV传导阻滞进展为二度I型AV传导阻滞,然后,非常意外地进展为CHB。尽管与心脏病学工作人员多次讨论了植入PPM的益处,但患者选择放弃该手术。本病例讨论了以患者为中心的护理以及当行善原则与患者自主权之间出现不一致时可能产生的治疗困境。