[Atrial stimulation and intranodal migration of sinus pacemaker in man (author's transl)].

In order to demonstrate, in man, sinus node pacemaker shift following atrial stimulation, we compared, in 26 patients, the curve of sinus node function obtained with Strauss' method with that resulting by the scanning with premature atrial stimulation of the first returning cycle following either a single premature atrial induced beat (140 ms shorter than the basic cycle) (group A), or a train of 8 consecutive atrial beats induced with a rate slightly faster (10 beats/m) than the control sinus rhythm (group B). Assuming that no changes in sinus pacemaker automaticity or in sinoatrial conduction occur owing to atrial stimulation, curves with the same shape should be observed if the site of the dominant pacemaker remains unchanged: whereas, different lengths of the compensatory phase (zone I) should be expected if an intranodal pacemaker shift occurs. For evaluating the length of the compensatory zone (zone I), we calculate, on the curve of the sinus node function, the mean value of the relation points included in the first third of the reset zone (zone II). According to our results, the length of the compensatory phase (zone I) evaluated on the curve resulting by the scanning of the first returning cycle following either a single premature atrial induced beat (group A), or eight consecutive atrial beats (group B) was shorter than that observed with the original Strauss' method (10% and 18% respectively). However, only in the group B, this difference was statistically significant. In addition, a significant inverse relationship between the shortening of the compensatory zone and the sinoatrial conduction index was also observed. Considering that our results have been corrected in such way as to repeal eventual changes in sinus pacemaker automaticity or sinoatrial conduction following atrial stimulation, the shortening of the compensatory zone, we have observed in our patients, strongly suggests an intranodal sinus pacemaker shift. If we assume that this result could represent an indirect evidence of this phenomenon, some clinical implications may follow: 1) another limitation, in addition to others known (intraatrial conduction delay, sinus arrhythmia, changes in sinus node automaticity, difference between retrograde and antegrade conduction time) could decrease the accuracy of atrial stimulation techniques in the estimation of the sinoatrial conduction time; 2) sinus pacemaker shift following atrial stimulation, may induce an understimulation of the true sinoatrial conduction time; however, according to our results, the error is generally small, so that it does no preclude the usefulness of atrial stimulation techniques in the evaluation of sinoatrial conduction; 3) the more evident and significant shortenings of the compensatory phase occurred with atrial pacing technique: this finding could explain why shorter sinoatrial conduction times are generally observed with Narula's method in comparison with Strauss' method.