Porterfield J G, Porterfield L M, Smith B A, Bray L
Methodist Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.
Am J Cardiol. 1993 Aug 1;72(3):301-4. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(93)90676-4.
Clinical investigations are being performed in multiprogrammable devices whose therapeutic options include antitachycardia pacing, cardioversion, defibrillation and bradycardia pacing. Three different third-generation devices were implanted in 46 research patients at 1 clinical center to document their safety and efficacy for the treatment of malignant ventricular arrhythmias. Additionally, the purpose of the study was to determine if antitachycardia pacing is a desirable and frequently used feature of tiered devices. The Medtronic PCD was implanted in 15 patients (12 men, mean age 60 +/- 13 years, mean ejection fraction 40 +/- 15%), the Ventritex Cadence in 21 patients (17 men, mean age 65 +/- 10 years, mean ejection fraction 38 +/- 12%), and the CPI VENTAK PRx in 10 patients (8 men, mean age 63 +/- 14 years, mean ejection fraction 31 +/- 8%). All patients presented with cardiac arrest or ventricular tachycardia. During follow-up of 10 +/- 6 months (range 1 to 19), 70% of the 20 patients with antitachycardia pacing activated used the feature for spontaneous ventricular tachycardia. The antitachycardia pacing parameters were reprogrammed 20 times in 15 patients. Two thousand six hundred thirty-eight of 2,675 (98%) antitachycardia pacing attempts successfully terminated spontaneous tachyarrhythmias. Low-energy cardioversion or defibrillation terminated tachyarrhythmias in patients where pacing was unsuccessful. One hundred forty-eight episodes of tachycardia were successfully treated directly by shocks in 16 of 46 patients (35%). There were no deaths due to device failure. This initial single-center clinical experience suggests that the PCD, Cadence and VENTAK PRx are all safe and effective tiered therapy devices for the treatment of malignant ventricular arrhythmias. Antitachycardia pacing successfully terminated most episodes of ventricular tachycardia; in patients with this feature activated, it was used frequently but required reprogramming to achieve high levels of success.
正在对多功能程控设备进行临床研究,这些设备的治疗选项包括抗心动过速起搏、心脏复律、除颤和心动过缓起搏。在1个临床中心,将3种不同的第三代设备植入46例研究患者体内,以记录其治疗恶性室性心律失常的安全性和有效性。此外,该研究的目的是确定抗心动过速起搏是否是分层设备中理想且常用的功能。15例患者(12名男性,平均年龄60±13岁,平均射血分数40±15%)植入了美敦力PCD,21例患者(17名男性,平均年龄65±10岁,平均射血分数38±12%)植入了Ventritex Cadence,10例患者(8名男性,平均年龄63±14岁,平均射血分数31±8%)植入了CPI VENTAK PRx。所有患者均出现心脏骤停或室性心动过速。在10±6个月(范围1至19个月)的随访期间,20例激活抗心动过速起搏功能的患者中有70%将该功能用于自发性室性心动过速。15例患者的抗心动过速起搏参数重新编程20次。2675次抗心动过速起搏尝试中有2638次(98%)成功终止了自发性快速心律失常。在起搏未成功的患者中,低能量心脏复律或除颤终止了快速心律失常。46例患者中有16例(35%)的148次心动过速发作通过电击直接成功治疗。没有因设备故障导致的死亡。这一初步的单中心临床经验表明,PCD、Cadence和VENTAK PRx都是治疗恶性室性心律失常安全有效的分层治疗设备。抗心动过速起搏成功终止了大多数室性心动过速发作;在激活该功能的患者中,它被频繁使用,但需要重新编程才能取得较高的成功率。