Raza S T, Lajos T Z, Bhayana J N, Lee A B, Lewin A N, Gehring B, Schimert G
Ann Thorac Surg. 1984 Sep;38(3):260-4. doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(10)62248-5.
To determine the advantages of atrioventricular (AV) sequential pacing over ventricular demand pacing, paired cardiovascular hemodynamic studies were performed in each pacing mode at a constant heart rate. The paired studies included determination of ejection fraction (EF) by echocardiography and gated blood pool radionuclide scanning, and of cardiac output (CO) by the indicator-dilution method. There was no significant difference in EF with either pacing mode. Determined by echocardiography, EF with AV sequential pacing was 57% compared with 56% with ventricular demand pacing; by the gated blood pool method, EF with AV sequential pacing was 58% compared with 57% in the ventricular mode. Significant improvement with AV sequential pacing was seen in CO (4.75 L/min from 3.75 L/min; p less than 0.01); stroke volume (58 ml from 48 ml; p less than 0.02); arteriovenous oxygen content difference (4.9 vol% from 5.6 vol%; p less than 0.01); total peripheral resistance (1,724 dynes sec cm-5 from 2,025 dynes sec cm-5; p less than 0.01); and cardiac contractility, as reflected by mixing time (6.9 seconds from 8.0 seconds; p less than 0.02). No significant changes were noted in mean arterial or atrial pressure or in systemic oxygen consumption. In a second group of 6 patients, similar paired studies were done in AV sequential pacing modes before and after therapeutic reduction of total peripheral resistance. A significant increase in CO (43%) was observed following reduction in total peripheral resistance. We conclude that AV sequential pacing improves CO more effectively than ventricular demand pacing. Cardiac output can be further enhanced in patients with congestive heart failure by pretreatment with agents to reduce total peripheral resistance.
为确定房室顺序起搏相对于心室按需起搏的优势,在每种起搏模式下以恒定心率进行了成对的心血管血流动力学研究。成对研究包括通过超声心动图和门控心血池放射性核素扫描测定射血分数(EF),以及通过指示剂稀释法测定心输出量(CO)。两种起搏模式下的EF无显著差异。通过超声心动图测定,房室顺序起搏时的EF为57%,而心室按需起搏时为56%;通过门控心血池法测定,房室顺序起搏时的EF为58%,心室模式下为57%。房室顺序起搏时CO有显著改善(从3.75 L/min增至4.75 L/min;p<0.01);每搏量(从48 ml增至58 ml;p<0.02);动静脉氧含量差(从5.6 vol%降至4.9 vol%;p<0.01);总外周阻力(从2025达因·秒·厘米⁻⁵降至1724达因·秒·厘米⁻⁵;p<0.01);以及反映心脏收缩力的混合时间(从8.0秒降至6.9秒;p<0.02)。平均动脉压或心房压以及全身氧耗量无显著变化。在第二组6例患者中,在治疗性降低总外周阻力前后,对房室顺序起搏模式进行了类似的成对研究。总外周阻力降低后观察到CO显著增加(43%)。我们得出结论,房室顺序起搏比心室按需起搏更有效地改善CO。对于充血性心力衰竭患者,通过使用降低总外周阻力的药物进行预处理可进一步提高心输出量。