摘要
目的本文通过组织多普勒技术分别评价右心室流出道(right ventricular outflow tract,RVOT)起搏和右心室心尖部(right ventricular apex,RVA)起搏对心室收缩同步性和心功能的影响。方法将42例无器质性心脏病的心动过缓患者随机分到 RVA 组(n=14)和 RVOT 组(n=28),起搏器植入术后通过三维超声心动图,将 RVOT 组进一步分为右心室流出道间隔部(right ventricular septum,RVS)组(n=17)和右心室流出道游离壁(right ventricular free wall,RVFW)组(n=11)。通过 QRS 时限、肺动脉射血前间期-主动脉射血前间期(PPEI-APEI)及左心室收缩不同步指数(Ts-SD)评价心室的电机械活动同步性;通过射血分数(ejection factor,EF)及 Tei 指数评价心室功能。结果 (1)起搏后各组的 QRS 时限、PPEI-APEI 和 Ts-SD 都显著增加(P<0.01)。(2)RVA 组和 RVOT 组起搏后 QRS 时限分别为(155.1±12.4)ms 和(143.5±6.7)ms,PPEI-APEI 分别为(-34.85±8.03)ms 和(-28.61±7.79)ms,Ts-SD 分别为(48.72±3.83)ms 和(41.91±3.56)ms(P<0.05)。术后6个月,RVOT 组的心功能指标要优于 RVA 组,两组 Tei 指数分别为0.507±0.08和0.418±0.05(P<0.05)。(3)亚组分析显示,RVA 组、RVFW 组和 RVS 组的 QRS 时限分别为(155.1±12.4)ms、(1473.±5.7)ms 和(141.0±6.2)ms(RVA=RVFW>RVS),PPEI~APEI 分别为(-34.85±8.03)ms、(-36.64±3.20)ms 和(-23.41±4.78)ms(RVA=RVFW>RVS),Ts-SD 分别为(48.72±3.83)ms、(44.65±3.23)ms 和(40.13±2.50)ms(RVA>RVFW>RVS)。术后3个月,3组 Tei 指数分别为0.464±0.063、0.449±0.029和0.393±0.047(RVA=RVFW>RVS)。结论 RVS 起搏后心室同步性优于 RVFW 和 RVA,有助于保护心室功能。
Objective This study used tissue Doppler imaging to compare the differences between right ventricular apex(RVA)and right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT)pacing in contraction synchrony and ventricular function. Methods Forty-two patients (mean age 63.5 ± 10. 4 years) without structural heart disease were randomized into RVA group (n = 14) and RVOT group (n =28). RVOT group was further divided into right ventricular septum(RVS) group ( n = 17 ) and right ventricular free wall (RVFW) group ( n = 11 ) by 3D-echocardiography. Patients were followed up 1,3,6 months after implantation. Ventricular synchrony was evaluated by QRS duration, PPEI - APEI and Ts-SD, and ventricular function was appraised by Tei index. Resuits Compared with intrinsic rhythm, the QRS duration, PPEI - APEI and Ts-SD were significantly changed during ventricular pacing in all groups. The mean QRS duration was ( 155. 1 ± 12. 4) ms for RVA pacing and (143.5 ±6.7)ms for RVOT pacing (P〈0. 001). The PPEI -APEI was ( -34.85 ±8.03)ms for RVA pacing and ( -28. 61 ±7. 79)ms for RVOT pacing (P =0. 02). Ts-SD was (48.72 ±3.83)ms for RVA pacing and(41.91 ±3.56)ms for RVOT pacing (P 〈0. 001). At 6 months after pacing, the Tei index was 0. 507 ± 0. 08 for RVA pacing and 0. 418 ± 0. 05 for RVOT pacing ( P 〈 0. 05 ). Sub-group analysis showed that the mean QRS duration for RVA, RVFW and RVS pacing was ( 155. 1 ± 12. 4) ms, ( 147.5 ± 5.7) ms, ( 141.0 ± 6. 2) ms (RVA=RVFW 〉RVS); the PPEI-APEI was ( -34.85 ±8.03)ms, ( -36.64±3.20)ms and (-23.41±4.78)ms (RVA=RVFW 〉RVS); Ts-SD was (48.72 ±3.83)ms, (44. 65 ±3.23)ms and (40. 13 ± 2. 50) ms ( RVA 〉 RVFW 〉 RVS). The mean Tei-index was 0. 464 ± 0. 063, 0. 449 ± 0. 029 and 0. 393 ± 0. 047 for RVA, RVFW and RVS group 3 months after implantation ( RVA = RVFW 〉 RVS). Con- ~lusions RVS pacing has a less adverse effect on contraction synchrony than RVA and RVFW pacing, and could protect ventricular function better.
出处
《中华心律失常学杂志》
2007年第6期465-470,共6页
Chinese Journal of Cardiac Arrhythmias
关键词
右心室流出道
起搏
同步性
TEI指数
Right ventricular outflow tract
Pacing
Synchrony
Tei index