Graux P, Carlioz R, Rivat P, Bera J, Guyomar Y, Dutoit A
Department of Cardiology, C.H. St-Philibert, Faculté Libre de Médecine, France.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1998 Jan;21(1 Pt 2):202-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1998.tb01089.x.
If atrial vulnerability parameters are well defined, wavelength (WL) measurement (conduction velocity x refractory period), has never been assessed through an endocavitary electrophysiological exam. We investigated 30 patients (14 female, mean age 63.4 +/- 13 y.o.), 10 with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF group), 10 with ischemic cerebral injury (ICI group) by comparison with 10 controls (C group). The upper to lower right atrium conduction time and velocity were measured in the right atrium with a decapolar electrode catheter applied along the free wall. Others parameters correlated to atrial excitability were also taken into account: effective (ERP) and functional refractory periods (FRP); spontaneous or paced atrial electrogram (A1) or extrastimulated atrial electrogram (A2) widths, ERP/A2 ratio, provocative atrial testing. Measurements were taken in sinus rhythm and in 600-460 ms paced cycle lengths. If ERP, FRP, A1 widths are the same in the 3 groups, PAF and ICI groups have a significant increased conduction time and lower conduction velocity, leading to a shorter A1 WL during 600 and 460 ms paced rhythms (p < 0.05) and A2 WL during 460 ms paced rhythm. The provocative testing was positive in 60% of PAF and ICI groups, and there is a significant correlation between arrhythmia induction and 600 ms A1 WL or 460 ms A2 WL. This electrophysiological study suggests the possibility of an approach in humans of wavelength concept and proves the presence of correlation between a short wavelength and atrial spontaneous or induced arrhythmias. A no-arrhythmia band (A1 WL > 17 cm during 600 ms paced rhythm, A1 WL > 16 cm or A2 WL > 12 cm during 460 ms paced rhythm) and a fibrillation-band (A1 WL < 12 cm during 600 and 460 ms pacing, A2 WL < 7 cm during 460 ms pacing) can be defined. Therefore, the ICI group has the same atrial pattern as the AF group.
如果心房易损性参数定义明确,波长(WL)测量(传导速度×不应期)从未通过心腔内电生理检查进行评估。我们研究了30例患者(14例女性,平均年龄63.4±13岁),其中10例为阵发性心房颤动(PAF组),10例为缺血性脑损伤(ICI组),并与10例对照组(C组)进行比较。使用沿游离壁放置的十极电极导管在右心房测量右上至下心房的传导时间和速度。还考虑了与心房兴奋性相关的其他参数:有效(ERP)和功能不应期(FRP);自发或起搏心房电图(A1)或额外刺激心房电图(A2)宽度、ERP/A2比值、激发性心房测试。在窦性心律以及600 - 460 ms起搏周期长度下进行测量。如果三组的ERP、FRP、A1宽度相同,PAF组和ICI组的传导时间显著增加且传导速度降低,导致在600和460 ms起搏节律期间A1 WL缩短(p < 0.05),在460 ms起搏节律期间A2 WL缩短。激发性测试在60%的PAF组和ICI组中呈阳性,并且心律失常诱发与600 ms A1 WL或460 ms A2 WL之间存在显著相关性。这项电生理研究表明在人体中应用波长概念的可能性,并证明短波长与心房自发或诱发心律失常之间存在相关性。可以定义一个无心律失常带(在600 ms起搏节律期间A1 WL > 17 cm,在460 ms起搏节律期间A1 WL > 16 cm或A2 WL > 12 cm)和一个颤动带(在600和460 ms起搏期间A1 WL < 12 cm,在460 ms起搏期间A2 WL < 7 cm)。因此,ICI组与房颤组具有相同的心房模式。