Schwarz F, Thormann J, Zimmermann H
Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1975 Feb 22;105(8):240-5.
Two syndromes, hypersensitive carotid sinus reflex (HCSR) and "sick sinus syndrome" (SSS) were studied in 28 patients, 6 of whom served as controls. Carotid sinus pressure was performed during sinus rhythm (CSP 1) and atrial stimulation just above the sinus rate (CSP 2). Overdrive suppression was also tested. Vagal stimulation provoked different effects in HCSR and in SSS. The vagal reaction to CSP 1 was more manifest in HCSR than in both SSS and the controls. After CSP 2 A-V conduction was delayed longer in HCSR than in SSS and the controls. Following atropine, the vagal effect on HCSR was more pronounced than on SSS and the controls. With HCSR, the duration of vagal influence on R-R intervals (A-V conduction) was significantly shorter than on P-P intervals (sinus rate). After atropine, there was less vagal effect on A-V conduction than on the sinus rate in HCSR, meaning that A-V conduction was shorter and less affected than the sinus rate by carotid sinus pressure. Prolonged suppression following overdrive established the diagnosis of SSS. This suppression was found not to be affected by atropine. A dependency of suppression on the rate and duration of overdrive could not be ascertained for SSS. The newly formulated "postdrive P-P interval recovery time" subdivided SSS in such a way that two different degrees of severity could be illustrated. The conclusion was that HCSR was caused by an excessive reaction to vagal stimulation rather than by a dysfunction of the sinus node or A-V conduction system. SSS might be based on tissue damage in the sinus nodal region but it did not show increased sensitivity to vagal influence.
对28例患者研究了两种综合征,即高敏性颈动脉窦反射(HCSR)和“病态窦房结综合征”(SSS),其中6例作为对照。在窦性心律时进行颈动脉窦按压(CSP 1),并在略高于窦性心律的心房刺激时进行颈动脉窦按压(CSP 2)。还测试了超速抑制。迷走神经刺激在HCSR和SSS中引发了不同的效应。迷走神经对CSP 1的反应在HCSR中比在SSS和对照组中更明显。CSP 2后,HCSR中房室传导延迟的时间比SSS和对照组更长。给予阿托品后,迷走神经对HCSR的影响比对SSS和对照组更明显。对于HCSR,迷走神经对R-R间期(房室传导)的影响持续时间明显短于对P-P间期(窦性心律)的影响。给予阿托品后,HCSR中迷走神经对房室传导的影响小于对窦性心律的影响,这意味着房室传导比窦性心律更短且受颈动脉窦按压的影响更小。超速驱动后的长期抑制确立了SSS的诊断。发现这种抑制不受阿托品影响。对于SSS,无法确定抑制与超速驱动的速率和持续时间之间的相关性。新制定的“驱动后P-P间期恢复时间”对SSS进行了细分,从而可以说明两种不同程度的严重程度。结论是,HCSR是由对迷走神经刺激的过度反应引起的,而不是由窦房结或房室传导系统功能障碍引起的。SSS可能基于窦房结区域的组织损伤,但未显示出对迷走神经影响的敏感性增加。