Hindman M C, Wagner G S, JaRo M, Atkins J M, Scheinman M M, DeSanctis R W, Hutter A H, Yeatman L, Rubenfire M, Pujura C, Rubin M, Morris J J
Circulation. 1978 Oct;58(4):689-99. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.58.4.689.
The indication for prophylactic temporary and permanent pacing during acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by bundle branch block is high risk of progression via a Type II pattern to second or third degree (high degree) AV block during hospitalization or follow-up. In this study, determinants of high degree AV block during hospitalization and sudden death or recurrent high degree block during the first year of follow-up were examined in 432 patients with MI and bundle branch block. Timing of onset of bundle branch block, the involved fascicles, and the PR interval were examined as determinants of risk of progression to high degree AV block during MI. At highest risk were 186 patients with blocks involving the right bundle and at least one fascicle of the left bundle which were not documented on prior electrocardiograms. Risk was similar with (38%) or without (31%) accompanying first degree AV block. Patients with transient high degree AV block during MI had a 28% incidence of sudden death or recurrent high degree block during the first year of follow-up. Patients not continuously paced had a higher incidence of sudden death or recurrent high degree block than patients continuously paced (65% vs 10%, P less than 0.001). Sudden death during follow-up also occurred in 13% of patients without high degree block during MI. A subgroup with 1) documented prior MI, 2) anterior or indeterminant acute MI, and 3) no symptoms of cardiac failure had a 35% risk of sudden death. The role of permanent pacing in this group is unknown. Thus, patients at high risk of high degree AV block should receive prophylactic temporary pacing. Patients who survive high degree block with MI should receive temporary and then permanent pacing. Patients without high degree AV block during MI who nervertheless have a high risk of sudden death may benefit from permanent pacing.
急性心肌梗死(MI)合并束支传导阻滞时,预防性临时和永久性起搏的指征是在住院期间或随访期间有通过Ⅱ型模式进展为二度或三度(高度)房室传导阻滞的高风险。在本研究中,对432例心肌梗死合并束支传导阻滞的患者进行了研究,以探讨住院期间高度房室传导阻滞以及随访第一年猝死或反复发生高度阻滞的决定因素。研究了束支传导阻滞的起始时间、受累束支以及PR间期,作为心肌梗死期间进展为高度房室传导阻滞风险的决定因素。风险最高的是186例右束支及左束支至少一个分支阻滞且既往心电图未记录的患者。伴有(38%)或不伴有(31%)一度房室传导阻滞时风险相似。心肌梗死期间发生短暂高度房室传导阻滞的患者在随访第一年猝死或反复发生高度阻滞的发生率为28%。未持续起搏的患者比持续起搏的患者猝死或反复发生高度阻滞的发生率更高(65%对10%,P<0.001)。随访期间,心肌梗死期间无高度房室传导阻滞的患者中也有13%发生猝死。一个具有1)有既往心肌梗死记录、2)前壁或不确定的急性心肌梗死、3)无心力衰竭症状的亚组猝死风险为35%。永久性起搏在该组中的作用尚不清楚。因此,高度房室传导阻滞高风险患者应接受预防性临时起搏。心肌梗死伴高度房室传导阻滞存活的患者应接受临时起搏,然后接受永久性起搏。心肌梗死期间无高度房室传导阻滞但猝死风险高的患者可能从永久性起搏中获益。