射频消融治疗植入型心律转复除颤器术后电风暴疗效分析

目的:探讨射频消融治疗植入型心律转复除颤器(ICD)患者术后电风暴的有效性.方法:回顾性纳入2010年1月1日-2019年12月31日就诊于大连医科大学附属第一医院行ICD或心脏再同步化治疗-除颤器(CRT-D)术后电风暴行射频消融治疗的患者.收集研究对象的年龄、性别、基础心脏病、心脏超声指标和B型利钠肽(BNP)等临...     

经导管射频消融心律转复除颤器植入后电风暴

目的报道3例心律转复除颤器（ICD）植入后抗心律失常药物治疗无效的室性心律失常电风暴患者经导管射频消融的结果。方法2名男性与1名女性患者,年龄为75、55、37岁,分别患有陈旧性前壁心肌梗死、致心律失常性右心室心肌病、左心室心肌病。均在ICD植入后发生抗心律失常药物治疗无效的电风暴。应用Carto电解剖标测系统引导盐水灌注射频导管标测和消融室性心动过速（VT）。对可标测VT（持续性、血流动力学稳定）行激动和拖带标测;对不可标测VT,则在基质标测的基础上行起搏标测和／或短时间的拖带标测。结果3例患者中共诱发出5种形态的VT,4种血流动力学较稳定VT和1种血流动力学不稳定VT。成功消融了所有形态的VT,抑制了电风暴的急性发作。消融后随访的6、19和36个月中,仅1例患者出现1次ICD放电。结论在电解剖标测的基础上,应用盐水灌注射频导管消融ICD植入后抗心律失常药物治疗无效的电风暴有很好的疗效。     

植入心律转复除颤器后发生电风暴一例

植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）电风暴由严重的室性心律失常引起，最常见于植入ICD的早期，是植入ICD后所特有的现象，即发生了需要多次转复的快速、成簇的室性心动过速（室速）或心室颤动（室颤）。[第一段]     

植入型心律转复除颤器电风暴的临床随访和治疗

目的本文观察植入犁心律转复除颤器（ICD）植入后电风暴的发生率、临床特征、临床治疗。方法回顾性分析了51例接受ICD治疗的病人,随访2～85个月,其中9例病人出现ICD电风暴,比较ICD电风暴组和无ICD电风暴组的年龄、病因左心室射血分数（LVEF）、心功能分级、临床特征、临床治疗方案。结果有电风暴的患者与无电风暴患者相比年龄更大,差异有统计学意义[（69±14）岁对（61±8）岁];心功能分级（2．7±0．7对2．1±0．6,P〈0．05）差异有统计学意义;两组LVEF（0．38±n09对0．48±0．04,P〈0．05）差异有统计学意义。在本文中导致ICD电风暴的主要因素是心功能的减退。结论有电风暴的病人比没有电风暴的病人年龄更大,心功能更差,LVEF更低。心力衰竭的加重和焦虑导致的交感神经兴奋是电风暴发生主要的原因。抗心律失常药物胺碘酮和美托洛尔是预防和治疗电风暴的主要手段。射频消融可作药物治疗无效后减少电风暴的主要于段。     

肾去交感神经术治疗植入型心律转复除颤器植入术后电风暴的研究进展

植入型心律转复除颤器(ICD)能有效预防和治疗因恶性心律失常导致的心源性猝死。但ICD植入术后患者发生电风暴不可预料且极其危险,目前针对ICD植入术后电风暴的治疗方法效果欠佳。近几年肾去交感神经术(RDN)为ICD植入术后电风暴的预防和治疗提供了新的思路和方法,RDN这一新的治疗方法能降低整个机体交感神经系统活性、明显抑制和逆转心肌重构,对改善和治疗心律失常有积极的效果。现对RDN治疗ICD植入术后电风暴的研究进展做一综述。     

植入埋藏式心律转复除颤器患者的术后电风暴

心源性猝死是发达国家的首要死亡原因：在我国,心源性猝死的发生率约为0．42‰,每年死亡总人数超过50万圆。植入型心律转复除颤器（implatable cardioverter defibrillator,ICD）可以明显降低因室性心动过速（ventricular tachycardia,VT）和心室颤动（ventricular fibrillation,VF）引起的心源性猝死的发生率。然而,     

植入型心律转复除颤器治疗恶性室性心律失常

目的 报道植入型心律转复除颤器治疗恶性室性心律失常５例次临床应用经验。方法 采用经静脉途径为４例恶性室性心律失常患者植入５台植入型心律转复除颤器,并随访３～６４个月。结果 随访期间１例患者发生１次室性心动过速并经低通量电击复律成功和１次误放电,余患者经抗心律失常药物治疗无症状发作。结论 植入型心律转复除颤器有效地治疗恶性室性心律失常,预防心脏性猝死的发生,适当的抗心律失常药物可减少植入型心律转复除     

植入型心律转复除颤器治疗快速心律失常

１９８０年２月，Ｍｉｒｏｗｓｋ首次为一位心脏骤停幸存者应用植入型心律转复除颤器（ＩＣＤ）的最早产品ＡＩＤ（植入型自动除颤器，ａｕｔｏｍａｔｉｃｉｍｐｌａｎｔａｂｌｅｄｅｆｉｂｒｉｌａｔｏｒ）治疗取得成功。１９年来，ＩＣＤ的设计不断完善，功能日益复杂精...     

植入型心律转复除颤器误识别一例

患者男性,48岁。因心肌炎后遗症、室性早搏(室早)、呈R波在T波上(RonT)致尖端扭转性室性心动过速(室速),伴晕厥。长期服用胺碘酮疗效不佳。于1999年3月31日植入美国Medtronic公司Jewel7221植入型心律转复除颤器(implantablecardioverterdefibrillator,ICD),手术经过及术后恢复顺利。　　术后第14d,患者因奔跑上楼,感到ICD连续放电,立即心电监测为窦性心动过速,频率为160次/min左右,给予毛花甙丙及安定治疗,心率逐渐下降,血压趋于稳定。　　用程控仪询问打印出ICD的工作参数,原先设置是:心室颤动(ventricularfibrillation,VF)识别间期…     

植入型心律转复除颤器治疗34例随访

目的:对我院37例安装植入型心律转复除颤器患者中34例长期随访(3例失访)。方法:将随访结果进行回顾性总结分析。结果:随访时间4～69个月,平均(24.7±18)个月。29例成功接受植入型心脏复律除颤器(ICD)治疗,占全部患者的85.3%。共发作恶性室性心律失常事件587次,其中313次为非持续性,均自行终止。接受ICD治疗的274次中室性心动过速(VT)238次,占86.9%。心室颤动(VF)36次,占13.1%。VT由抗心动过速起搏(ATP)终止212次,由低能量(2～15J)转复终止23次。有3次VT在ATP治疗时转为VF,由高能量除颤(DF)终止。VF经高能量除颤36次,全部一次成功。5例患者因房性心动过速(房速)或心房颤动(房颤)被误识别为VT而发放电击。34例中有3例死亡,1例死于急性心肌梗死,1例死于心力衰竭,1例死因不明。结论:ICD可以有效的终止VT、VF,是防治心源性猝死的有效治疗手段。     

植入埋藏式心脏复律除颤器患者的电风暴

埋藏式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)预防心源性猝死,提高患者生存率。电风暴是ICD植入后可能出现的一种严重室性心律失常事件,不仅缩短ICD的寿命,还提示患者预后不良。文章就电风暴的定义、发生率、长期预后、促发因素及治疗进行综述。     

心律转复除颤器植入术后电风暴的发生及其对预后的影响

目的调查单中心心律转复除颤器（ICD）植入术后电风暴（ES）的发生率、发作特征和危险因素，并探讨其对患者预后的影响。方法对本中心123例植入ICD的患者进行随访。Es定义为24h内出现3次或3次以上的快速室性心律失常（VA）导致ICD治疗，或ICD监测到持续30s以上的VA但未发放治疗。结果在（26．9±21．3）个月的随访期间，共有41（33．3％）例患者（ES组）发作139次ES（3．4±3．9）次／例，其中29（70．7％）例患者的首次发作在植入后1年内出现，Es发作呈现出6：00—10：00和14：00～17：00两个高峰。多因素Logistic回归分析表明植入ICD作为心脏性猝死二级预防是ES发生的独立危险因素（OR=4．797，P=0．044）。本组共15（12．2％）例患者死亡，Es组死亡率较无Es组（24．4％对6．1％，P=0．003）显著增高，Kaplan—Meier生存曲线分析显示Es组累计生存概率明显低于无Es组（Log—rank检验P〈0．001）。结论Es发作表现为上午和下午两个高峰，可导致死亡率增高，其首次发作多在ICD植入后1年内。植入ICD作为心脏性猝死二级预防是Es发生的独立危险因素。     

Avoidance behaviors in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

BACKGROUND: Although the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has become standard therapy for some malignant cardiac arrhythmias, the shocks delivered by the device are often experienced as aversive. Anecdotal accounts of patients avoiding specific objects or places raise the possibility that conditioned avoidance responses can be established in response to ICD shocks. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to better understand the nature of avoidance behavior among ICD recipients and to examine the relevance of classical conditioning and cognitive models to ICD-related avoidance behavior. METHODS: A total of 143 recipients of ICDs completed an anonymous survey reporting on aspects of their experience with the ICD and whether they had begun avoiding specific places, objects, or activities since receiving an ICD. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent of respondents reported at least 1 category of avoidance since receiving an ICD. The frequency of reported avoidances was highest in activities (39%), followed by objects (27%) and places (17%), which were least avoided. There was no relationship between the reported experience of shocks and avoidance behavior, and little evidence for conditioned avoidance. CONCLUSION: Avoidance that is not medically recommended is common among patients with ICDs. This may have adverse effects on quality of life and perhaps the physical health of some patients. Cognitive models, rather than classical conditioning, seem to explain the majority of avoidance behavior reported in this sample. A brief educational intervention or regular participation in ICD support groups could help to dispel misinformation among patients and discourage inappropriate avoidance.     

Clinical experience in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Forty patients (36 men and 4 women) with life-threatening arrhythmia received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Mean age was 63 years (range, 46 to 80 years). All patients had structural heart disease, with coronary artery disease in 32 patients, idiopathic cardiomyopathy in 7 patients, and hypertensive heart disease in 1 patient. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 29 +/- 13%. The clinical arrhythmia was out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in 14 patients (35%), symptomatic sustained ventricular tachycardia in 21 patients (53%), and episodes of syncope without documented spontaneous ventricular arrhythmia but ventricular tachycardia that was easily provoked at the time of electrophysiologic testing in 5 patients (13%). Sustained ventricular tachycardia was induced in 37 patients (93%) at basic electrophysiologic testing. The average number of drug failures was 2.9 +/- 1.4 per patient. One patient (2.5%) died perioperatively because of intractable ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation. During a median follow-up period of 5.5 months (range 2-21 months) 2 sudden deaths occurred. No patient had a serious complication during the follow-up period. Ten patients (25%) received antiarrhythmic drugs to suppress spontaneous ventricular tachycardia. Appropriate shock treatment was received by 18 patients (45%), and inappropriate shock treatment was received by 2 patients (5%). Several issues regarding use of the ICD must be considered, but the device seems to be useful, and it is associated with an acceptable rate of complications and good long-term success at the present time.     

埋藏式心脏转复除颤器的随访

目的报道37例埋藏式心脏转复除颤器(ICD)的随访结果。方法对置入ICD的37例患者进行电话询问和门诊随访,通过常规心电图、动态心电图及ICD存储的资料,对患者病情和ICD工作情况进行分析。结果37例患者共发作室性心动过速/心室颤动(VT/VF)917次(VT745次,VF172次),其中911次(99.3%)治疗成功,6次(0.7%)失败。非持续性VT122次(16.4%),发作均自行停止。623次持续性VT(83.6%)中,537次(86.2%)经抗心动过速起搏(ATP)终止,82次(13.2%)经低能量复律(CV)终止,3次(0.4%)在ATP治疗过程中加速为VF,由高能量除颤(DF)终止。172次VF中,167次(97.1%)经DF终止,1例无效放电5次(2.9%)系因电池提前耗竭而更换了ICD脉冲发生器,2例共8次阵发性心房颤动心室率超过设置的VT频率ICD发生误识别,给予ATP治疗。5例术后1~6个月出现心律失常“电风暴”。5例对电击恐惧造成了不同程度的心理障碍,经教导必要时辅以药物治疗后症状得以缓解。共有19例术后因VT发作频繁而服用胺碘酮/美托洛尔,并根据心律失常发作情况调整用药剂量。结论ICD置入后应加强随访,及时调整工作参数,同时辅助药物、改善心功能和心理治疗。     

Clinical predictors and prognostic significance of electrical storm in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

AIMS: Insufficient data exists regarding predictors of electrical storms (ES) and clinical outcome in patients treated with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). The purpose of this study was to delineate a subgroup of patients likely to experience ES and to determine the impact of ES on mortality in ICD recipients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of 307 ICD-treated patients were retrospectively analysed. ES was defined as two or more ventricular tachyarrhythmias within 24 h leading to an immediate electrical therapy (antitachycardia pacing and/or shock), separated by a period of sinus rhythm. Clinical characteristics and survival of 123 patients experiencing a total of 294 episodes of ES (median 2 ES/patient, range 1-9), were compared with those of 184 ES-free patients during a median follow-up of 826 days (inter-quartile 1141 days). Median actuarial duration for the first ES occurrence after ICD implant was 1417 days [95% confidence interval (CI) 1061-2363] with a median follow-up of 816 days (7-4642 days) in ES-free patients. Univariate analysis identified older age, depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), ventricular tachycardia (VT) as index arrhythmia, chronic renal failure and absence of lipid-lowering drugs as variables significantly associated with an increased risk of ES. Multivariable Cox analysis confirmed an independent predictive value for chronic renal failure [hazard ratio (HR) 1.54, 95% CI 0.95-2.51, P=0.052], VT (HR 2.20, 95% CI 1.44-3.37, P=0.0003), and LVEF (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99, P=0.027). In contrast, diabetics (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.90, P=0.022) were less affected by ES. There was no difference in survival between both groups. CONCLUSION: ES is frequent but does not increase mortality in ICD's recipients. Patients with severe systolic dysfunction, chronic renal failure and VT as initial arrhythmia are likely to experience ES. Diabetics are less affected by ES.     

QRS时限预测心律转复除颤器植入术后电风暴患者的远期预后

目的探讨影响植入型心律转复除颤器（IcD）术后发生电风暴（ES）患者远期预后的预测因子。方法回顾性分析2003年1月至2011年9月在南京医科大学第一附属医院心脏科植入ICD术后发生Es进行或未进行射频导管消融的47例患者的相关临床参数。结果47例患者平均年龄（51±14）岁，平均随访18个月，心脏性死亡10例。多因素Cox回归分析显示QRS时限为影响ICD术后发生Es患者生存情况的预测因子[危险比（HR）=1．042，P=0．012]，射频导管消融治疗不能改善患者的预后（HR=0．034，P=0．347）。对于QRS时限≥110ms的患者，射频导管消融治疗也不能影响患者的生存情况（HR=0．037，P=0．395）。结论QRS时限可作为ICD植人术后发生Es患者远期预后的预测因子，射频导管消融并不能改善此类患者的预后。     

Sports participation in patients with implantable cardioverter–defibrillators

The safety of sports participation for patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) is not yet defined, and current recommendations in both Europe and the US restrict these patients from competative sports more vigorous than golf or bowling. Postulated risks include increased frequency of arrhythmias, inability of the ICD to terminate ventricular arrhythmias during the metabolic changes accompanying extreme exercise, injury to the patient, or damage to the ICD system. However, survey data suggest that many ICD patients do participate in sports, and risks may be fewer than postulated. Ongoing research will better delineate the risks of sports for patients with ICDs.