Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2007
Ventricular electrical activation in cardiac resynchronization as characterized by body surface potential mapping.
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.
Pastore Carlos Alberto, Tobias Nancy, Samesima Nelson, Martinelli Filho Martino, Pedrosa Anisio, Nishioka Silvana, Douglas Roberto A, Moreira Luiz Felipe Pinho, Ramires José Franchini
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To assess cardiac electrical activation by using body surface potential mapping (BSPM), in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacemaker (BIV-PM) implantation.
METHODS: Mean cardiac electrical activation times were analyzed in the right ventricle (RV) (mean RV activation time = mRV), anteroseptal area (mAS), and left ventricle (mLV) of 28 patients (mean age 61.2 +/- 9.5 years; NYHA class III-IV CHF; ejection fraction <40%; LBBB of mean QRS 181.2+/-19.4 ms, SAQRS -8.5 masculine+/-68.6 masculine), as shown in their BSPM isochronous maps, before and after implantation of atriobiventricular pacemaker, comparing those with values obtained from a control group of normal individuals [CG], in three situations: (1) native LBBB; (2) RV pacing; and (3) atriobiventricular pacing.
RESULTS: Situation (1): mRV and mAS values were similar (41.0+/-11.8 ms x 43.6+/-13.4 ms), with delayed mLV (81.0+/-12.5 ms, p<0.01) and asynchronous with RV and AS areas; situation (2): mRV was greater than in CG (86.8+/-22.9 ms, p<0.001), with greater difference between mAS and mLV (63.4+/-20.7 ms vs. 102.7+/-20.3 ms; p<0,001); situation (3): mLV and mRV were similar (72.0+/-32.0 ms vs. 71.6+/-32.3 ms), mRV was greater than in CG and native LBBB (71.6+/-32.3 ms vs. 35.1+/-10.9 ms and 41.0+/-11.8 ms; p<0.001), and mAS was close to CG and native LBBB values (51.3+/-32.8 ms vs. 50.1+/-11.4 ms and 43.6+/-13.4 ms).
CONCLUSION: The body surface potential mapping showed that RV and LV activation times which are similar, and are close to those of the AS area, suggest patterns of synchronized ventricular activation in patients with CHF and LBBB during atriobiventricular pacing.
METHODS: Mean cardiac electrical activation times were analyzed in the right ventricle (RV) (mean RV activation time = mRV), anteroseptal area (mAS), and left ventricle (mLV) of 28 patients (mean age 61.2 +/- 9.5 years; NYHA class III-IV CHF; ejection fraction <40%; LBBB of mean QRS 181.2+/-19.4 ms, SAQRS -8.5 masculine+/-68.6 masculine), as shown in their BSPM isochronous maps, before and after implantation of atriobiventricular pacemaker, comparing those with values obtained from a control group of normal individuals [CG], in three situations: (1) native LBBB; (2) RV pacing; and (3) atriobiventricular pacing.
RESULTS: Situation (1): mRV and mAS values were similar (41.0+/-11.8 ms x 43.6+/-13.4 ms), with delayed mLV (81.0+/-12.5 ms, p<0.01) and asynchronous with RV and AS areas; situation (2): mRV was greater than in CG (86.8+/-22.9 ms, p<0.001), with greater difference between mAS and mLV (63.4+/-20.7 ms vs. 102.7+/-20.3 ms; p<0,001); situation (3): mLV and mRV were similar (72.0+/-32.0 ms vs. 71.6+/-32.3 ms), mRV was greater than in CG and native LBBB (71.6+/-32.3 ms vs. 35.1+/-10.9 ms and 41.0+/-11.8 ms; p<0.001), and mAS was close to CG and native LBBB values (51.3+/-32.8 ms vs. 50.1+/-11.4 ms and 43.6+/-13.4 ms).
CONCLUSION: The body surface potential mapping showed that RV and LV activation times which are similar, and are close to those of the AS area, suggest patterns of synchronized ventricular activation in patients with CHF and LBBB during atriobiventricular pacing.