Xiao H B, Brecker S J, Gibson D G
Cardiac Department, Royal Brompton National Heart and Lung Hospital, London.
Br Heart J. 1993 Feb;69(2):166-73. doi: 10.1136/hrt.69.2.166.
To compare the different effects of right ventricular pacing and classic left bundle branch block on left ventricular function.
Retrospective and prospective study of 48 patients by electrocardiography, and M mode, cross sectional, and Doppler echocardiography.
A tertiary cardiac referral centre.
48 patients (age range 21 to 89 years, 15 women), 24 with a VVI pacemaker implanted and 24 with classic left bundle branch block. Functional mitral regurgitation was present in all those with right ventricular pacing and 22 of those with left bundle branch block.
Age, RR interval, and left ventricular size were similar in the two groups, as were conventional measurements of overall systolic function: shortening fraction and pre-ejection and aortic ejection times. In right ventricular pacing, however, QRS duration (p < 0.01) and electromechanical delay were much longer (p < 0.001), whereas the time intervals from onset of mitral regurgitation to aortic opening (contraction time) and from A 2 to the end of mitral regurgitation (relaxation time) were consistently shorter (p < 0.01) than corresponding values in patients with left bundle branch block. Reversed splitting of the second heart sound was much commoner in left bundle branch block (p < 0.02), and only these patients showed an early systolic ventricular septal contraction. Its onset followed the initial deflection of the QRS complex by 40(15) ms and preceded mitral regurgitation by a small but consistent interval of 10 ms (p < 0.01). The onset of posterior wall thickening was synchronous with the onset of mitral regurgitation in right ventricular pacing but much later (p < 0.01) in patients with left bundle branch block. The extent of incoordinate wall motion measure as relative dimension change during pre-ejection and isovolumic relaxation period was much greater (p < 0.01) in left bundle branch block. These major differences were not altered by left ventricular cavity size in either group, nor by the presence of previous left bundle branch block in patients who were subsequently paced.
The left ventricle seems to be activated much more rapidly with right ventricular pacing than with left bundle branch block. This applies even when left bundle branch block is present before pacing. Electromechanical delay, contraction and relaxation times, and extent of incoordinate ventricular wall motion differ strikingly between the two conditions. The use of right ventricular pacing as an experimental model of left bundle branch block in humans must be re-examined.
比较右心室起搏与典型左束支传导阻滞对左心室功能的不同影响。
通过心电图、M型、横截面和多普勒超声心动图对48例患者进行回顾性和前瞻性研究。
一家三级心脏转诊中心。
48例患者(年龄范围21至89岁,15名女性),24例植入VVI起搏器,24例患有典型左束支传导阻滞。所有右心室起搏患者及22例左束支传导阻滞患者均存在功能性二尖瓣反流。
两组患者的年龄、RR间期和左心室大小相似,整体收缩功能的常规测量指标(缩短分数、射血前期和主动脉射血时间)也相似。然而,在右心室起搏时,QRS时限(p<0.01)和机电延迟要长得多(p<0.001),而从二尖瓣反流开始到主动脉开放的时间间隔(收缩时间)以及从A2到二尖瓣反流结束的时间间隔(舒张时间)始终比左束支传导阻滞患者的相应值短(p<0.01)。第二心音逆分裂在左束支传导阻滞中更为常见(p<0.02),只有这些患者出现收缩期早期室间隔收缩。其起始在QRS波群初始偏转后40(15)毫秒,在二尖瓣反流之前有一个小但一致的10毫秒间隔(p<0.01)。右心室起搏时后壁增厚的起始与二尖瓣反流的起始同步,但在左束支传导阻滞患者中要晚得多(p<0.01)。在射血前期和等容舒张期,以相对尺寸变化衡量的不协调室壁运动程度在左束支传导阻滞中要大得多(p<0.01)。这些主要差异在两组中均不受左心室腔大小的影响,也不受随后起搏患者既往左束支传导阻滞的影响。
右心室起搏时左心室的激活似乎比左束支传导阻滞时更快。即使在起搏前存在左束支传导阻滞时也是如此。两种情况下,机电延迟、收缩和舒张时间以及不协调室壁运动程度存在显著差异。必须重新审视将右心室起搏用作人类左束支传导阻滞实验模型的做法。