Suppr超能文献

在心房扑动或心房颤动期间植入心房导线?

Atrial lead implantation during atrial flutter or fibrillation?

作者信息

Kindermann M, Fröhlig G, Berg M, Lawall P, Schieffer H

机构信息

Innere Medizin III, Universitätskliniken des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar, Germany.

出版信息

Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1998 Aug;21(8):1531-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1998.tb00239.x.

Abstract

In patients with sinoatrial disease, unexpected atrial flutter (Af) or fibrillation (AF) is a common problem during implantation of atrial-based pacing systems. As an alternative approach to blind atrial lead placement, lead positioning could be optimized by atrial electrogram mapping. It was the object of this study to evaluate if atrial lead implantation according to this approach and during ongoing arrhythmia is reasonable or if it should be postponed until restoration of sinus rhythm (SR). Twenty-nine consecutive patients (group I) with sick sinus syndrome received a dual-chamber pacemaker during an episode of Af (n = 11) or AF (n = 18). All but two atrial leads were of the screw-in type and had bipolar sensing. Atrial lead position was optimized by mapping the electrogram under fluoroscopy to find locations with high potential amplitudes. The patients were followed for 15.1 +/- 9.8 months, and atrial sensing threshold (AST), atrial pulse width threshold (PWT) at 2.0 V, the pacing mode programmed, and the clinical outcome (OUT) were recorded. The control group consisted of 30 patients (group II) who equally had a history of AF or Af, but were in SR during implantation. The atrial peak-to-peak potential (APEAK) after final lead placement was lower for AF (median value 2.5 mV, lower-upper quartile: 1.7-3.1 mV) as compared to Af (3.8 mV, 2.7-4.9 mV, P < 0.05) and SR (4.1 mV, 3.3-6.2 mV, P < 0.001). There was a correlation (P < 0.01) between APEAK during Af/AF and the postoperative AST immediately after restoration of SR. No lead in any group had to be corrected due to improper sensing in the postoperative course. Median chronic AST was 2.8 mV (2.0-4.0 mV) in group I and 4.0 mV (2.8-4.0 mV) in group II. Median chronic PWT at 2.0 V was 0.15 ms (0.12-0.26 ms) in group I and 0.15 ms (0.09-0.20 ms) in group II. There was no significant difference in chronic AST and PWT between both groups. All but two patients in group I preserved SR as the basic rhythm. A stable SR was observed in 10 of 29 patients, intermittent Af/AF was documented in 17 of 29 patients, seven of whom were asymptomatic. There was no significant difference in OUT between group I and II. Hence, sinus rhythm is not a prerequisite of atrial lead implantation. Mapping the Af or AF waves appears to be useful to guide lead placement and to achieve sufficient sensing and pacing conditions after conversion to sinus rhythm.

摘要

在患有窦房结疾病的患者中,意外发生的心房扑动(Af)或心房颤动(AF)是植入心房起搏系统过程中的常见问题。作为盲目放置心房导线的替代方法,可通过心房电图标测优化导线定位。本研究的目的是评估按照这种方法在持续性心律失常期间植入心房导线是否合理,还是应推迟到恢复窦性心律(SR)之后。29例连续的病态窦房结综合征患者(I组)在Af发作(n = 11)或AF发作(n = 18)期间接受了双腔起搏器植入。除两根心房导线外,其余均为旋入式且具有双极感知功能。通过在荧光透视下对电图进行标测来优化心房导线位置,以找到具有高电位振幅的位置。对患者进行了15.1±9.8个月的随访,并记录了心房感知阈值(AST)、2.0V时的心房脉宽阈值(PWT)、程控的起搏模式以及临床结局(OUT)。对照组由30例患者(II组)组成,这些患者同样有AF或Af病史,但在植入时处于SR状态。与Af(3.8mV,四分位数下限 - 上限:2.7 - 4.9mV)和SR(4.1mV,3.3 - 6.2mV,P < 0.001)相比,AF最终导线放置后的心房峰 - 峰电位(APEAK)较低(中位数为2.5mV,四分位数下限 - 上限:1.7 - 3.1mV)。Af/AF期间的APEAK与恢复SR后立即测得的术后AST之间存在相关性(P < 0.01)。术后过程中,没有任何一组因感知不当而需要纠正导线位置。I组慢性AST中位数为2.8mV(2.0 - 4.0mV),II组为4.0mV(2.8 - 4.0mV)。2.0V时的慢性PWT中位数在I组为0.15ms(0.12 - 0.26ms),II组为0.15ms(0.09 - 0.20ms)。两组之间慢性AST和PWT无显著差异。I组除两名患者外,其余均以SR作为基本心律。29例患者中有10例观察到稳定的SR,29例中有17例记录到间歇性Af/AF,其中7例无症状。I组和II组的OUT无显著差异。因此,窦性心律不是心房导线植入的先决条件。标测Af或AF波似乎有助于指导导线放置,并在转为窦性心律后实现足够的感知和起搏条件。

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