Journal of veterinary cardiology : the official journal of the European Society of Veterinary Cardiology · 2018
Upper rate behavior in six dogs with dual-chamber pacemakers.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Potter B M, Ames M K, Toffoli A M, Scansen B A
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This report provides clinical examples of upper rate behavior in dogs with dual-chamber pacemakers, with suggestions for programming alterations to avoid detrimental upper rate behavior.
ANIMALS: Six dogs with dual-chamber pacemakers displaying upper rate behavior at upper atrial tracking rates.
METHODS: Medical records of dogs with dual-chamber pacemakers with evidence of upper rate behavior were reviewed retrospectively from two institutions. Two of the six dogs were followed prospectively, and 24 h Holter monitors were placed to evaluate upper rate behavior correlated to programming settings.
RESULTS: Pacemaker Wenckebach or 2:1 atrioventricular block was documented in four of six dogs, and automatic mode switch was documented in two of six dogs. Twenty-four-hour Holter monitors placed on two dogs after pacemaker optimization documented a pacemaker Wenckebach window at increased atrial rates with neither dog reaching their respective 2:1 block point throughout the recording period.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians who implant dual-chamber pacemakers should be aware of upper rate behavior in animal species with high heart rates. Optimal programming of dual-chamber pacemakers can be achieved by selecting programmed timing intervals to limit deleterious upper rate behavior and create a more physiologic ventricular response at maximum tracking rates.
ANIMALS: Six dogs with dual-chamber pacemakers displaying upper rate behavior at upper atrial tracking rates.
METHODS: Medical records of dogs with dual-chamber pacemakers with evidence of upper rate behavior were reviewed retrospectively from two institutions. Two of the six dogs were followed prospectively, and 24 h Holter monitors were placed to evaluate upper rate behavior correlated to programming settings.
RESULTS: Pacemaker Wenckebach or 2:1 atrioventricular block was documented in four of six dogs, and automatic mode switch was documented in two of six dogs. Twenty-four-hour Holter monitors placed on two dogs after pacemaker optimization documented a pacemaker Wenckebach window at increased atrial rates with neither dog reaching their respective 2:1 block point throughout the recording period.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians who implant dual-chamber pacemakers should be aware of upper rate behavior in animal species with high heart rates. Optimal programming of dual-chamber pacemakers can be achieved by selecting programmed timing intervals to limit deleterious upper rate behavior and create a more physiologic ventricular response at maximum tracking rates.