Circulation journal : official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society · 2006
Suppression of atrial fibrillation by atrial pacing.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Inoue Noriko, Ishikawa Toshiyuki, Sumita Shinichi, Kobayashi Tsukasa, Matsushita Kohei, Matsumoto Katsumi, Taima Minoru, Shimura Miei, Uchino Kazuaki, Kimura Kazuo, Umemura Satoshi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia in patients with an implanted pacemaker, but the role of atrial pacing in preventing AF is still unclear.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty-six patients (67.8+/-12.1 years) were enrolled: 54 with sick sinus syndrome (SSS), 11 with atrioventricular blocks (AVB), and 1 with SSS and AVB. The prevalence of AF was investigated. In 22 patients with AF, the AF burden was estimated under "back-up pacing" (40-50 beats/min), then under "atrial pacing" (60-85 beats/min). The prevalence of AF in the SSS group tended to be higher than that in the AVB group (48.1% vs 18.2%, p=0.06). The AF burden in patients with a percentage of atrial pacing (% atrial pacing) <50% was significantly greater than that in patients with % atrial pacing >or=50% (12.5+/-21.1% vs 4.2+/-10.3%, p<0.05). AF disappeared immediately after "atrial pacing" in 4 patients (18.2%). In 9 patients (40.9%), the AF burden decreased gradually, and AF disappeared in 6 patients (27.3%) after 207.9+/-130.2 days.
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of AF may be higher in patients with SSS than in those with AVB. Atrial pacing has a preventive effect on AF, and the effect of atrial pacing is not always immediate but is progressive in some patients.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty-six patients (67.8+/-12.1 years) were enrolled: 54 with sick sinus syndrome (SSS), 11 with atrioventricular blocks (AVB), and 1 with SSS and AVB. The prevalence of AF was investigated. In 22 patients with AF, the AF burden was estimated under "back-up pacing" (40-50 beats/min), then under "atrial pacing" (60-85 beats/min). The prevalence of AF in the SSS group tended to be higher than that in the AVB group (48.1% vs 18.2%, p=0.06). The AF burden in patients with a percentage of atrial pacing (% atrial pacing) <50% was significantly greater than that in patients with % atrial pacing >or=50% (12.5+/-21.1% vs 4.2+/-10.3%, p<0.05). AF disappeared immediately after "atrial pacing" in 4 patients (18.2%). In 9 patients (40.9%), the AF burden decreased gradually, and AF disappeared in 6 patients (27.3%) after 207.9+/-130.2 days.
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of AF may be higher in patients with SSS than in those with AVB. Atrial pacing has a preventive effect on AF, and the effect of atrial pacing is not always immediate but is progressive in some patients.