Chamberlain-Webber R, Petersen M E, Ingram A, Briers L, Sutton R
Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1994 Nov;17(11 Pt 1):1730-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1994.tb03739.x.
Seven hundred seventy-one dual chamber pacemakers implanted over a 13-year period were identified using a computer database. The mean follow-up period was 40.4 +/- 30.9 months (mean +/- SD). Thirty-three (4.3%) patients were reprogrammed to the VVI mode after a mean period of 26.4 +/- 29 months. Indications for pacing in those reprogrammed were: complete heart block 45.7%, impaired AV conduction 5.7%, sick sinus syndrome 34.2%, carotid sinus syndrome 11.4%, and vasovagal syndrome 2.8%. The most common reason for reprogramming was development of sustained atrial arrhythmias (atrial fibrillation or flutter), which occurred in 25 patients (3.3% of entire group). The remaining 8 (1% of entire group) were reprogrammed because of atrial lead related problems.
利用计算机数据库识别出在13年期间植入的771台双腔起搏器。平均随访期为40.4±30.9个月(平均值±标准差)。33例(4.3%)患者在平均26.4±29个月后被重新程控为VVI模式。重新程控患者的起搏指征为:完全性心脏传导阻滞45.7%,房室传导受损5.7%,病态窦房结综合征34.2%,颈动脉窦综合征11.4%,血管迷走性综合征2.8%。重新程控的最常见原因是发生持续性房性心律失常(心房颤动或心房扑动),这在25例患者中出现(占整个组的3.3%)。其余8例(占整个组的1%)因心房导线相关问题而被重新程控。