Friehling T D, Kowey P R, Shechter J A, Engel T R
Am J Cardiol. 1985 May 1;55(11):1339-43. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(85)90500-4.
The variation in dispersion of ventricular refractoriness with different sites of pacing was measured in 11 patients not taking antiarrhythmic drugs. Dispersion of refractoriness between 3 right ventricular sites was determined at constant paced cycle lengths (S1S1). Refractoriness to ventricular extrastimulation (S2) using atrial pacing vs "clinical" pacing (drive or S1 at the right ventricular apex) vs the conventional measurement of dispersion (S1 at the site of S2) was compared. Effective and functional refractory periods (ERP and FRP) were measured from electrograms at the site of application of S2. Dispersion of ERP was always wider using clinical pacing (65.4 +/- 26 ms [+/- standard deviation]) than atrial pacing or traditional drive (20.4 +/- 14 and 19.1 +/- 10 ms, p less than 0.0001). Similarly, dispersion of FRP was greater with clinical pacing (45.0 +/- 35 vs 21.8 +/- 14 and 17.3 +/- 13, p less than 0.011). In 2 patients with left bundle branch block these differences were most striking. Clinical pacing foreshortened FRP relative to ERP (FRP shorter than ERP by an average 12.5 ms at nonapical sites) but this did not induce tachycardias, perhaps because FRP was still longer than the shortest V1V2 achieved conventionally (FRP was longer at nonapical sites than at the apex using clinical pacing, p less than 0.05). With atrial pacing there is less dispersion of refractoriness than with clinical ventricular pacing, although this difference is not appreciated when dispersion is measured in the conventional manner.
在11名未服用抗心律失常药物的患者中,测量了不同起搏部位心室不应期离散度的变化。在固定的起搏周期长度(S1S1)下,测定了3个右心室部位之间的不应期离散度。比较了使用心房起搏与“临床”起搏(右心室心尖部驱动或S1)与传统离散度测量方法(S2部位的S1)时心室额外刺激(S2)的不应期。从S2应用部位的心电图测量有效和功能不应期(ERP和FRP)。使用临床起搏时ERP的离散度(65.4±26毫秒[±标准差])总是比心房起搏或传统驱动(20.4±14和19.1±10毫秒,p<0.0001)更宽。同样,临床起搏时FRP的离散度更大(45.0±35与21.8±14和17.3±13,p<0.011)。在2例左束支传导阻滞患者中,这些差异最为显著。临床起搏使FRP相对于ERP缩短(非心尖部位FRP比ERP平均短12.5毫秒),但这并未诱发心动过速,可能是因为FRP仍长于传统方式获得的最短V1V2(使用临床起搏时非心尖部位的FRP比心尖部更长,p<0.05)。与临床心室起搏相比,心房起搏时不应期的离散度较小,尽管以传统方式测量离散度时这种差异不明显。