Wietholt D, Block M, Isbruch F, Böcker D, Borggrefe M, Shenasa M, Breithardt G
Hospital of the Westfälische-Wilhelms University of Münster, Department of Cardiology and Angiology, Germany.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993 Mar 15;21(4):885-94. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(93)90343-y.
This study was conducted to assess the effectiveness of antitachycardia pacing modes and detection algorithms in patients with a new third-generation implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.
Twenty-three of 42 consecutive patients had coronary artery disease, 14 had dilated cardiomyopathy, 2 had prior valve replacement and 3 had arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia. The mean ejection fraction was 41 +/- 14%; there were 31 men (74%) and 11 women, with a mean age of 53 years. On the basis of preoperative and postoperative electrophysiologic studies, in 28 patients antitachycardia pacing was postoperatively programmed randomly as "burst" (66%) or autodecremental "ramp" (34%) stimulation with a first coupling interval of 81% of tachycardia cycle length and up to 8 sequences with 3 to 10 stimuli.
During a follow-up interval of 6.3 +/- 2.2 months, 15 patients were treated by antitachycardia pacing for a median of 6 (range 1 to 59) hemodynamically stable ventricular tachycardias (175 +/- 12 beats/min). In 5 patients, 22 ventricular tachycardias (9%) were not terminated by antitachycardia pacing but by cardioversion. Seven (3%) of these episodes accelerated (> 50 ms) during antitachycardia pacing. Syncope did not occur during these episodes. In seven patients initial antitachycardia pacing in cases of supraventricular tachycardias delayed charging and redetection prevented inappropriate discharges. Additional detection algorithms were programmed only after inappropriate therapy. The sudden "onset" and "sustained rate duration" criteria were programmed in three patients and the cycle length "stability" criteria in six patients, respectively. After activation of these detection algorithms only two of the seven patients had further inappropriate device discharges.
Thus, antitachycardia pacing by this implantable cardioverter-defibrillator effectively and appropriately terminated 91% of hemodynamically stable ventricular tachycardias. Inappropriate device discharges were prevented in some patients by antitachycardia pacing and additional detection algorithms.
本研究旨在评估新型第三代植入式心脏复律除颤器患者中抗心动过速起搏模式和检测算法的有效性。
42例连续患者中,23例患有冠状动脉疾病,14例患有扩张型心肌病,2例曾接受瓣膜置换术,3例患有致心律失常性右心室发育不良。平均射血分数为41±14%;有31名男性(74%)和11名女性,平均年龄为53岁。根据术前和术后的电生理研究,28例患者术后抗心动过速起搏被随机编程为“猝发”(66%)或自动递减“斜坡”(34%)刺激,首次耦合间期为心动过速周期长度的81%,最多8个序列,每个序列有3至10次刺激。
在6.3±2.2个月的随访期间,15例患者接受了抗心动过速起搏治疗,平均治疗6次(范围1至59次)血流动力学稳定的室性心动过速(1791%。在5例患者中,22次室性心动过速(9%)未通过抗心动过速起搏终止,而是通过心脏复律终止。其中7次(3%)发作在抗心动过速起搏期间加速(>50毫秒)。这些发作期间未发生晕厥。在7例患者中,室上性心动过速时最初的抗心动过速起搏延迟充电,重新检测防止了不适当的放电。仅在不适当治疗后才编程额外的检测算法。分别有3例患者编程了突然“起始”和“持续速率持续时间”标准,6例患者编程了周期长度“稳定性”标准。激活这些检测算法后,7例患者中只有2例进一步发生了不适当的设备放电。
因此,这种植入式心脏复律除颤器的抗心动过速起搏有效且适当地终止了91%的血流动力学稳定的室性心动过速。抗心动过速起搏和额外的检测算法在一些患者中防止了不适当的设备放电。