Suppr超能文献

二度房室传导阻滞的生存率

Survival in second degree atrioventricular block.

作者信息

Shaw D B, Kekwick C A, Veale D, Gowers J, Whistance T

出版信息

Br Heart J. 1985 Jun;53(6):587-93. doi: 10.1136/hrt.53.6.587.

Abstract

Two hundred and 14 patients with chronic second degree heart block were seen and followed up in the Devon Heart Block and Bradycardia Survey between 1968 and 1982. The patients were divided into three groups according to the type of block. In group 1 there were 77 patients with Mobitz type I block (mean age 69 years), in group 2, 86 patients with Mobitz type II block (mean age 74 years), and in group 3, 51 with 2:1 or 3:1 block (mean age 75 years). The five year survival was similar in all groups, being 57%, 61%, and 53% in groups 1, 2, and 3 respectively. The presence or absence of bundle branch block did not appear to influence prognosis. In particular, patients in group 1 without bundle branch block did not fare any better than those in group 2 both with and without bundle branch block. One hundred and three of the patients were fitted with pacemakers, the proportion being greatest in group 2. In each group a significantly larger number of paced patients survived than unpaced. The five year survival for all the paced patients in the study was 78% compared with 41% for the unpaced. Since the paced patients were slightly younger than the unpaced two age matched groups of 74 patients each were selected from the paced and unpaced patients, but the five year survival of those paced was still significantly better. It is concluded that in the patients in the present study chronic Mobitz type I block has a similar prognosis to that of Mobitz type II block. Unpaced patients with both types did very badly, whereas those fitted with pacemakers had a five year survival similar to that expected for the normal population. These results refute the benign reputation of chronic Mobitz type I block and imply that patients with this condition should be considered for pacemaker implantation on similar criteria to those adopted for patients with higher degrees of block.

摘要

在1968年至1982年期间的德文郡心脏传导阻滞与心动过缓调查中,共诊治并随访了214例慢性二度心脏传导阻滞患者。根据传导阻滞类型,患者被分为三组。第1组有77例莫氏I型阻滞患者(平均年龄69岁),第2组有86例莫氏II型阻滞患者(平均年龄74岁),第3组有51例2:1或3:1阻滞患者(平均年龄75岁)。所有组的五年生存率相似,第1、2、3组分别为57%、61%和53%。束支传导阻滞的有无似乎不影响预后。特别是,第1组中无束支传导阻滞的患者,其预后并不比第2组中有或无束支传导阻滞的患者更好。103例患者安装了起搏器,第2组的比例最高。在每组中,接受起搏治疗的患者存活人数明显多于未起搏患者。该研究中所有接受起搏治疗的患者五年生存率为78%,而未起搏患者为41%。由于接受起搏治疗的患者比未起搏患者略年轻,因此从起搏和未起搏患者中各选取了两组年龄匹配的74例患者,但接受起搏治疗的患者五年生存率仍显著更高。得出的结论是,在本研究的患者中,慢性莫氏I型阻滞的预后与莫氏II型阻滞相似。两种类型的未起搏患者预后都很差,而安装了起搏器的患者五年生存率与正常人群预期的相似。这些结果驳斥了慢性莫氏I型阻滞预后良好的观点,并表明对于患有这种疾病的患者,应根据与更高程度阻滞患者相同的标准考虑植入起搏器。

相似文献

1
Survival in second degree atrioventricular block.二度房室传导阻滞的生存率
Br Heart J. 1985 Jun;53(6):587-93. doi: 10.1136/hrt.53.6.587.
7
Bradycardia-dependent bundle branch block during Mobitz I second degree heart block.
Chest. 1989 Feb;95(2):438-40. doi: 10.1378/chest.95.2.438.
8
Second degree atrioventricular block.
Eur Heart J. 1984 Mar;5 Suppl A:111-4. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/5.suppl_a.111.

引用本文的文献

2
Is conduction system pacing a panacea for pacemaker therapy?传导系统起搏是起搏器治疗的万能药吗?
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2024 Jul;21(7):613-623. doi: 10.1080/17434440.2024.2370827. Epub 2024 Jun 24.
9
Long-term Intrinsic Rhythm Evaluation in Dogs with Atrioventricular Block.房室传导阻滞犬的长期固有节律评估
J Vet Intern Med. 2016 Jan-Feb;30(1):58-62. doi: 10.1111/jvim.13661. Epub 2015 Nov 17.

本文引用的文献

4
Natural history of chronic second-degree atrioventricular nodal block.
Circulation. 1981 May;63(5):1043-9. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.63.5.1043.
6
The rhythm of the heart in active elderly subjects.
Am Heart J. 1980 May;99(5):598-603. doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(80)90733-4.
8
Electrophysiologic and histologic correlations in chronic complete atrioventricular block.
Circulation. 1981 Aug;64(2):215-31. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.64.2.215.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验