Phibbs B, Friedman H S, Graboys T B, Lown B, Marriott H J, Nelson W P, Preston T
JAMA. 1984 Sep 14;252(10):1307-11.
Indications for permanent pacing in the bradyarrhythmias are summarized. In the absence of symptoms, pacing is justified only when Mobitz type II block or complete atrioventricular (AV) block is localized in the bundle-branch system. All other abnormalities of impulse generation or conduction (incomplete AV block of any type, atrial fibrillation with slow ventricular response, or sinus node dysfunction) must be shown to be stable and intrinsic and to cause CNS symptoms or hemodynamic compromise to justify pacing. Isolated intra-Hisian abnormality without failure of AV conduction is benign. Measurement of HV interval does not contribute significant information. Correlation of carotid sinus sensitivity with carotid sinus syncope is poor (5%). Bradyarrhythmia produced by minimal effective doses of an essential drug is a rare indication for pacing and requires special documentation. Inadequate indications, sources of error, and misconceptions are discussed. Generally, it is important to exclude drug effect, transient clinical states, and correctable systemic disease as causes of the abnormality before making a conclusion about pacing.
总结了缓慢性心律失常患者永久性起搏的适应证。在无症状的情况下,仅当莫氏Ⅱ型阻滞或完全性房室(AV)阻滞定位于束支系统时,起搏才是合理的。所有其他冲动产生或传导异常(任何类型的不完全性AV阻滞、伴有缓慢心室反应的心房颤动或窦房结功能障碍)必须被证明是稳定的、内在的,并且会导致中枢神经系统症状或血流动力学损害,起搏才合理。孤立的希氏束内异常且无AV传导障碍是良性的。测量HV间期不会提供重要信息。颈动脉窦敏感性与颈动脉窦晕厥的相关性较差(5%)。由最小有效剂量的必需药物引起的缓慢性心律失常是起搏的罕见适应证,需要特殊记录。讨论了不充分的适应证、误差来源和误解。一般来说,在对起搏做出结论之前,排除药物作用、短暂临床状态和可纠正的全身性疾病作为异常原因很重要。