多点心房起搏预防房颤:下一步该怎么走?

Anand Ramdat Misier, Willem P Beukema, Roger Willems
{"title":"多点心房起搏预防房颤:下一步该怎么走?","authors":"Anand Ramdat Misier,&nbsp;Willem P Beukema,&nbsp;Roger Willems","doi":"10.1023/B:CEPR.0000023132.72125.ca","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia associated with stroke, increased mortality and with a negative impact on quality of life. Pharmacologic treatments for AF have not provided long-term relief from arrhythmia recurrence. Multi-site atrial pacing was introduced by Daubert and colleagues about 10 years ago for the treatment of severe atrial conduction delays in patients with sick sinus syndrome. They found that this type of atrial stimulation reduced or prevented AF. Multi-site atrial pacing results in reduction of intra-atrial and interatrial conduction differences and diminishes heterogeneity of refractoriness, i.e. atrial resynchronization. Acute electrophysiological studies have shown that biatrial stimulation reduced AF inducibility. The Dutch Dual-site Right Atrial Pacing for Prevention of Atrial Fibrillation study was a prospective randomized crossover trial comparing the recurrences of AF in dual-site right atrial and single-site high right atrial pacing in patients with symptomatic medically refractory AF, without or with minimal structural heart disease. Patients were randomized to initial dual-site pacing (Group I n = 18) or initial single-site (Group II n = 22) pacing. After 6 months or after a study endpoint was reached patients were crossed over to the other pacing modality.Although, the arrhythmia free intervals were longer for dual-site pacing during both treatments periods (Group I 162 +/- 12 and Group II 114 +/- 15 days) compared to single-site pacing (Group I 143 +/- 16 and Group II 97 +/- 10 days) the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.061). However, the sequence of the randomized treatment periods had a significant effect on outcome (p < 0.02). Event free intervals (AF > 48 hours requiring electrical cardioversion) were longer during dual-site pacing in both groups compared to single-site stimulation but the difference was statistically not significant (p = 0.055) because of treatment interaction (P < 0.05). To establish the clinical benefits of multi-site pacing for the treatment of patients with medically refractory symptomatic AF, additional prospective randomized studies are needed. Trials with a parallel design are necessary to avoid carry-over effects of different stimulation protocols.</p>","PeriodicalId":80888,"journal":{"name":"Cardiac electrophysiology review","volume":"7 4","pages":"329-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1023/B:CEPR.0000023132.72125.ca","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multisite atrial pacing for atrial fibrillation prevention: where to go from here?\",\"authors\":\"Anand Ramdat Misier,&nbsp;Willem P Beukema,&nbsp;Roger Willems\",\"doi\":\"10.1023/B:CEPR.0000023132.72125.ca\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia associated with stroke, increased mortality and with a negative impact on quality of life. Pharmacologic treatments for AF have not provided long-term relief from arrhythmia recurrence. Multi-site atrial pacing was introduced by Daubert and colleagues about 10 years ago for the treatment of severe atrial conduction delays in patients with sick sinus syndrome. They found that this type of atrial stimulation reduced or prevented AF. Multi-site atrial pacing results in reduction of intra-atrial and interatrial conduction differences and diminishes heterogeneity of refractoriness, i.e. atrial resynchronization. Acute electrophysiological studies have shown that biatrial stimulation reduced AF inducibility. The Dutch Dual-site Right Atrial Pacing for Prevention of Atrial Fibrillation study was a prospective randomized crossover trial comparing the recurrences of AF in dual-site right atrial and single-site high right atrial pacing in patients with symptomatic medically refractory AF, without or with minimal structural heart disease. Patients were randomized to initial dual-site pacing (Group I n = 18) or initial single-site (Group II n = 22) pacing. After 6 months or after a study endpoint was reached patients were crossed over to the other pacing modality.Although, the arrhythmia free intervals were longer for dual-site pacing during both treatments periods (Group I 162 +/- 12 and Group II 114 +/- 15 days) compared to single-site pacing (Group I 143 +/- 16 and Group II 97 +/- 10 days) the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.061). However, the sequence of the randomized treatment periods had a significant effect on outcome (p < 0.02). Event free intervals (AF > 48 hours requiring electrical cardioversion) were longer during dual-site pacing in both groups compared to single-site stimulation but the difference was statistically not significant (p = 0.055) because of treatment interaction (P < 0.05). To establish the clinical benefits of multi-site pacing for the treatment of patients with medically refractory symptomatic AF, additional prospective randomized studies are needed. Trials with a parallel design are necessary to avoid carry-over effects of different stimulation protocols.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":80888,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiac electrophysiology review\",\"volume\":\"7 4\",\"pages\":\"329-32\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1023/B:CEPR.0000023132.72125.ca\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiac electrophysiology review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CEPR.0000023132.72125.ca\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiac electrophysiology review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CEPR.0000023132.72125.ca","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

心房颤动(AF)是一种常见的心律失常,与中风相关,死亡率增加,并对生活质量产生负面影响。房颤的药物治疗不能长期缓解心律失常复发。多位点心房起搏是在大约10年前由Daubert及其同事提出的,用于治疗病态窦性综合征患者的严重心房传导延迟。他们发现这种类型的心房刺激可以减少或预防房颤。多位点心房起搏可以减少房内和房间传导差异,减少难治性的异质性,即心房再同步化。急性电生理研究表明,双心房刺激可降低心房颤动诱发性。荷兰双中心右心房起搏预防房颤研究是一项前瞻性随机交叉试验,比较有症状的难治性房颤患者双中心右心房起搏和单中心右心房高位起搏时房颤的复发率,无或伴有轻微的结构性心脏病。患者被随机分配到初始双中心起搏(组I n = 18)或初始单中心起搏(组II n = 22)。6个月后或达到研究终点后,患者转入另一种起搏方式。虽然在两个治疗期间,双中心起搏组(组I 162 +/- 12天,组II 114 +/- 15天)的心律失常无间隔时间较单中心起搏组(组I 143 +/- 16天,组II 97 +/- 10天)更长,但差异无统计学意义(p = 0.061)。然而,随机治疗期的顺序对结果有显著影响(p < 0.02)。两组患者的无事件间隔(AF > 48小时,需要电复律)均长于单点刺激,但由于治疗相互作用,差异无统计学意义(p = 0.055) (p < 0.05)。为了确定多位点起搏治疗难治性症状性房颤患者的临床益处,还需要更多的前瞻性随机研究。采用平行设计的试验是必要的,以避免不同刺激方案的结转效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Multisite atrial pacing for atrial fibrillation prevention: where to go from here?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia associated with stroke, increased mortality and with a negative impact on quality of life. Pharmacologic treatments for AF have not provided long-term relief from arrhythmia recurrence. Multi-site atrial pacing was introduced by Daubert and colleagues about 10 years ago for the treatment of severe atrial conduction delays in patients with sick sinus syndrome. They found that this type of atrial stimulation reduced or prevented AF. Multi-site atrial pacing results in reduction of intra-atrial and interatrial conduction differences and diminishes heterogeneity of refractoriness, i.e. atrial resynchronization. Acute electrophysiological studies have shown that biatrial stimulation reduced AF inducibility. The Dutch Dual-site Right Atrial Pacing for Prevention of Atrial Fibrillation study was a prospective randomized crossover trial comparing the recurrences of AF in dual-site right atrial and single-site high right atrial pacing in patients with symptomatic medically refractory AF, without or with minimal structural heart disease. Patients were randomized to initial dual-site pacing (Group I n = 18) or initial single-site (Group II n = 22) pacing. After 6 months or after a study endpoint was reached patients were crossed over to the other pacing modality.Although, the arrhythmia free intervals were longer for dual-site pacing during both treatments periods (Group I 162 +/- 12 and Group II 114 +/- 15 days) compared to single-site pacing (Group I 143 +/- 16 and Group II 97 +/- 10 days) the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.061). However, the sequence of the randomized treatment periods had a significant effect on outcome (p < 0.02). Event free intervals (AF > 48 hours requiring electrical cardioversion) were longer during dual-site pacing in both groups compared to single-site stimulation but the difference was statistically not significant (p = 0.055) because of treatment interaction (P < 0.05). To establish the clinical benefits of multi-site pacing for the treatment of patients with medically refractory symptomatic AF, additional prospective randomized studies are needed. Trials with a parallel design are necessary to avoid carry-over effects of different stimulation protocols.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信