Suppr超能文献

双束支和三束支阻滞时房室及室内传导的电生理分析

[Electrophysiological analysis of atrioventricular and intraventricular conduction in bi- and tri-fascicular blocks].

作者信息

Ducceschi V, Sarubbi B, Mayer M S, De Divitiis M, Briglia N, Scialdone A, Santangelo L, Iacono A

机构信息

Cattedra di Cardiologia, II Università degli Studi, Napoli, Facoltà di Medicina e Chirurgia.

出版信息

Minerva Cardioangiol. 1997 Mar;45(3):87-93.

PMID:9213825
Abstract

We have evaluated, at baseline and during incremental atrial pacing (AP), intracardiac conduction features of 53 patients with electrocardiographic diagnosis of bifascicular or trifascicular block, free from any pharmacological treatment potentially able to affect atrioventricular (AV) conduction system properties. The patients have been subdivided in the following groups: group A (13 patients), with LBBB and a PQ interval > or = 200 msec; group B (14 patients), with RBBB, LAH with a PQ interval > or = 200 msec; group C (8 patients), with LBBB and a PQ < 200 msec; group D (15 patients), with RBBB, LAH and a PQ < 200 msec; group E (3 patients), with RBBB, LPH and a PQ < 200 msec. In group A, 31% presented a long AH interval (> 140 msec), while 85% showed an increased infra-his conduction time (HV > 55 msec). During AP, only 38.5% maintained a 1:1 AV conduction ratio up to 140 bpm, while 30.8% developed an infra-his Mobitz 2 2nd degree AV block. 15.4% an infrahis 2:1 2nd degree AV block, 15.4% an AV nodal Mobitz 2 2nd degree AV block. In group B, 64% and 29% exhibited respectively an AV nodal and an infrahis conduction delay. During AP, 57.1% maintained a 1:1 AV conduction ratio up to 140 bpm, 14.3% developed an AV nodal Mobitz 1 2nd degree AV block, 14.3% an infrahis Mobitz 1 2nd degree AV block, 7.1% an AV nodal 2:1 2nd degree AV block, 7.1% an infrahis Mobitz 2 2nd degree AV block. In group C, no patient manifested a prolonged AH interval, while 50% exhibited a HV > 55 msec. 62.5% maintained a 1:1 AV conduction ratio up to 140 bpm, 25% developed an AV nodal Mobitz 1 2nd degree AV block and 12.5% an infrahis 2:1 2nd degree AV block. In group D, no patient showed an increased AH interval and only 13% presented a HV interval exceeding 55 msec. During AP, 86.7% maintained a 1:1 AV conduction ratio up to 140 bpm, 6.6% developed an AV nodal Mobitz 1 2nd degree AV block, 6.6% an infrahis 2:1 2nd degree AV block. In group E, no patient showed a prolonged AH interval, while 2/3 (66.6%) exhibited an infrahis conduction delay. During AP, 100% developed an infrahis 2:1 2nd degree AV block. Considering all patients with LBBB (groups A+C) and with RBBB+LAH (groups B+D), no differences were found in terms of PQ, PA and AH intervals, even though, concerning patients with a long PQ (group A vs group B), AH interval resulted significantly longer in patients with RBBB+LAH (121.85 +/- 36.4 msec vs 163.29 +/- 55.96 msec, p = 0.031). Infrahis conduction, independently from the measurement adopted (HVI interval: from the beginning of the His to the onset of the ventricular electrogram recorded at the His region; HV2 interval: from the beginning of the His to the onset of the surface QRS), resulted more compromised in patients with LBBB than in patients with RBBB+LAH (HVI: 75.24 +/- 40.23 msec vs 50.79 +/- 25.16 msec, p = 0.011; HV2: 77.24 +/- 38.12 msec vs 53.92 +/- 29.3 msec, p = 0.015). Such a difference became even more significant when comparing the percentage of patients with a prolonged HV interval (average value > 55 msec) in the above mentioned groups: 71.4% in case of LBBB, 20.7% in case of RBBB+LAH (p < 0.001). Regarding intraventricular conduction (IV), no statistically significant differences were found. In patients with RBBB+LAH, IV was not related to infrahis conduction time and PQ interval appeared more related to AH (r = 0.838, p < 0.001) than to HV (PQ-HV1: r = 0.381, p = 0.041, PQ-HV2: r = 0.474, p = 0.009). Conversely, in patients with LBBB infrahis and IV conduction appeared linearly related (HVI-V: r = 0.416, p = 0.06; HV2-V: r = 0.445, p = 0.043). As for PQ interval, it resulted more closely related to infrahis conduction (PQ-HVI: r = 0.626, p = 0.002; PQ-HV2: r = 0.674, p < 0.001), than to AH (r = 0.533, p = 0.013). In conclusion, infrahis conduction resulted more impaired in patients with LBBB. In this group, differently from patients with RBBB+LAH, infrahis conduction seems to affect the degree of IV conduction delay. (ABST

摘要

我们在基线时以及在递增性心房起搏(AP)期间,对53例经心电图诊断为双分支或三分支阻滞且未接受任何可能影响房室(AV)传导系统特性的药物治疗的患者进行了心内传导特征评估。患者被分为以下几组:A组(13例),左束支传导阻滞(LBBB)且PQ间期≥200毫秒;B组(14例),右束支传导阻滞(RBBB)、左前分支阻滞(LAH)且PQ间期≥200毫秒;C组(8例),LBBB且PQ<200毫秒;D组(15例),RBBB、LAH且PQ<200毫秒;E组(3例),RBBB、左后分支阻滞(LPH)且PQ<200毫秒。在A组中,31%的患者AH间期延长(>140毫秒),而85%的患者希氏束以下传导时间延长(HV>55毫秒)。在AP期间,仅38.5%的患者在心率达140次/分时维持1:1房室传导比例,而30.8%的患者发生希氏束以下莫氏Ⅱ型二度房室传导阻滞。15.4%的患者发生希氏束以下2:1二度房室传导阻滞,15.4%的患者发生房室结莫氏Ⅱ型二度房室传导阻滞。在B组中,64%和29%的患者分别表现为房室结和希氏束以下传导延迟。在AP期间,57.1%的患者在心率达140次/分时维持1:1房室传导比例,14.3%的患者发生房室结莫氏Ⅰ型二度房室传导阻滞,14.3%的患者发生希氏束以下莫氏Ⅰ型二度房室传导阻滞,7.1%的患者发生房室结2:1二度房室传导阻滞,7.1%的患者发生希氏束以下莫氏Ⅱ型二度房室传导阻滞。在C组中,无患者表现出AH间期延长,而50%的患者HV>55毫秒。62.5%的患者在心率达140次/分时维持1:1房室传导比例,25%的患者发生房室结莫氏Ⅰ型二度房室传导阻滞,12.5%的患者发生希氏束以下2:1二度房室传导阻滞。在D组中,无患者AH间期延长,仅13%的患者HV间期超过55毫秒。在AP期间,86.7%的患者在心率达140次/分时维持1:1房室传导比例,6.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验