右美托咪定控制埋藏式心脏转复除颤器术后室性心律失常风暴一例

1例男性患者,埋藏式心脏转复除颤器(ICD)术后3个月,因"半天内ICD反复放电十余次"再次入院,程控ICD发现半天内放电34次,予提高室性心动过速(简称室速)/心室颤动(简称室颤)ICD低限识别频率,静脉补钾、泵入盐酸胺碘酮以及艾司洛尔等治疗无效,室速、室颤仍反复发作,部分需体外电除颤,遂静脉泵入右美托咪定,室速及室颤风暴获得明显控制,应用右美托咪定1h后再无室速/室颤发作。     

沙库巴曲缬沙坦对植入了心脏除颤器的心力衰竭患者室性心律失常发生的影响

目的探讨沙库巴曲缬沙坦对心脏再同步化心脏转复除颤器(CRTD)或埋藏式心脏转复除颤器(ICD)植入的射血分数降低的心力衰竭患者室性心律失常发生的影响。方法在18例植入CRTD或ICD射血分数降低的心力衰竭患者中,通过分析器械提供的室性心动过速/心室颤动(简称室速/室颤)计数(VT/VF Counters)及心脏指南针报告中记录的数据,比较使用沙库巴曲缬沙坦6个月前后室性心律失常的发生情况。结果应用沙库巴曲缬沙坦后,与治疗前相比,非持续性室速及室速/室颤事件均有减少(P=0.035和0.017);而单发室性早搏、连续室性早搏、监测室速及电风暴事件均无统计学差异(P0.05)。结论沙库巴曲缬沙坦可进一步减少射血分数降低的心力衰竭患者非持续性室速及室速/室颤事件的发生,从而减少ICD干预治疗。     

艾司洛尔治疗交感风暴44例疗效观察

心室电风暴(ventricular electrical storm:VES)[1],又称室性心动过速(室速)风暴,交感风暴,是指24h内自发的室速、心室颤动(室颤)≥2次,并需要紧急治疗的临床症候群[2],主要见于各种器质性心脏病、非器质性心脏病、医源性(如置入ICD术后)及遗传性心律失常。目前为心脏猝死的重要原因,是致命性心律失常,尤其发生在心功能不全者,病情危重死亡率高。因此快速有效地控制交感风暴的发生,对降     

急性冠脉综合征合并电风暴

<正>急性冠脉综合征(ACS)是因冠脉内不稳定斑块破裂,形成完全性或不完全性冠脉闭塞,从而发生心肌缺血的临床综合征,ACS可表现为不稳定型心绞痛(UA)、急性非ST段抬高型心梗(NSTEMI)、急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)或心脏性猝死。1 ACS后电风暴的定义ACS室性心律失常电风暴是指室颤或并发血流动力学不稳定的室速在24 h内反复发作,≥20次或≥4次/h,且需电除颤或电复律终止者。上述定义与ICD植入后电风暴的的概念不同,后者指电风暴发     

心室电风暴的机制与起搏作用的实验观察

目的观察心室电风暴与室房逆传的关系和起搏的作用。方法以扎、松冠状动脉左前降支的方法制作25只犬缺血-再灌注室性心律失常模型,以针电极探查希氏-浦肯野系统(HPS)的电冲动。结果16只犬自发3次以上室性心动过速/心室颤动(简称室速/室颤),符合电风暴。电风暴时室房传导呈4种类型:Ⅰ~Ⅲ型HPS异位电冲动皆连续逆传,Ⅰ型间断夺获心房;Ⅱ型未夺获心房,但连续抑制前向房波下传,产生假性Ⅲ度房室阻滞;Ⅲ型连续夺获心房;IV型HPS逆向与前向传导交替。快速起搏心房可重建房室前传和稳定的血压。快速起搏心室作用有:①抑制异位电冲动形成,防止触发室颤,但不终止自律性异常室速;②拖带和终止折返性室速,显现室速的拖带变形现象和双向折返;③多不夺获快速室速/室颤,偶见HPS起搏和串刺激夺获心室,快速室速/室颤频率减慢后自发终止。结论HPS异位电冲动逆向传导,阻滞窦性心律下传,促使室速/室颤反复发作而呈现电风暴现象。起搏重建房室传导和抑制异位电冲动形成,有预防电风暴的作用。     

心脏术后心室电风暴的诊治体会(附2例报告)

心室电风暴,又称室速风暴、交感风暴、儿茶酚胺风暴、电风暴(electrical storm,ES)[1],是指24h内自发2次或2次以上的伴血流动力学不稳定的室速和/或室颤,间隔窦性心律,通常需要电转复和电除颤紧急治疗的临床症候群[2]。其起病突然、病死     

急性心肌梗死合并心动过速风暴8例抢救体会

2006年室性心动过速（室速）治疗的指南中,将心室电风暴或称交感风暴定义为24h内患者自发1〉2次的心室颤动（室颤）或快速室速需要电复律紧急处理的症候群。冠心病急性心肌梗死导致拘心室电风暴是心脏性猝死的重要原因。     

心室电风暴19例回顾性分析

目的 探讨心室电风暴的临床特征及心电图特点.方法 回顾性分析19例心室电风暴患者的临床资料.结果 19例心室电风暴患者均出现一项或多项心电图异常改变,主要表现为室速/室颤,但在室速/室颤发作前常有交感神经激活,伴有相应的一些预警性心电图表现.结论 早期识别心室电风暴的临床特征及心电图特点,及时采取有效的抢救措施,是治疗...     

心肌梗死后反复交感电风暴一例

2006年ACC/AHA/ESC<室性心律失常的诊疗和心源性猝死预防指南>中首次将交感电风暴定义为:24h内自发2次或2次以上的室性心动过速(室速)或心室纤颤(室颤),需要紧急治疗的临床症候群,又名室速风暴或ICD风暴[1].其发生的根本原因是交感神经的过度兴奋,急性心肌缺血[2]、心力衰竭加重、电解质紊乱、精神与躯体的应激等常是交感风暴的基础病因.急性心肌梗死后患者一旦出现交感电风暴,具有极高的致死率.     

室性心律失常电风暴的诊断与治疗

室性心律失常电风暴(ventricular arrhythmia storms)系指24h内发生≥2～3次的室性心动过速(室速)和(或)心室颤动(室颤),引起严重血流动力学障碍而需要立即电复律或电除颤等治疗的急性危重性症候群,简称电风暴(electrical storm).     

埋藏式心脏转复除颤器安置后电风暴的处理与预后

目的通过分析埋藏式心脏转复除颤器(ICD)患者的长期随访资料,总结电风暴(ES)的诱发因素、临床处理及预后。方法48例患者共植入50台ICD,ES定义为24hICD正确检测到≥3次室性快速性心律失常,并促发ICD电治疗。结果随访时间中位数为16.9个月。共6例发生了8次ES。常见诱因为严重感染、心力衰竭和肾功能衰竭等。通过纠正诱因,使用抗心律失常药物,能有效减少和避免ICD电治疗。ES发生后,死亡率明显增高。结论ICD患者发生ES有比较明确的诱发因素,并且ES具有一定的预后判断价值。     

Elektrischer Sturm bei ICD-Patienten

Medical progress and demographic changes cause a continuous increase in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). Up to one third of patients with ICDs for secondary prevention and half of the patients with previous electrical storm (ES) will suffer from (further) ESs. When multiple ICD shocks are reported by patients (ICD storm), appropriate, inappropriate and phantom shocks have to be distinguished. Reported shocks without clinical correlates (phantom) often affect patients suffering from posttraumatic stress syndrome after an ICD storm. Approximately one third of all ICD shocks are inappropriate, most often due to supraventricular tachycardia with fast atrioventricular (AV) nodal conduction or lead failure. Within 10 years after implantation lead failure can be detected in up to 20?% of cases and approximately one third of these failures are only seen after inappropriate ICD shocks. Furthermore, inappropriate shocks are due to oversensing of far field atrial electrograms, T-waves, diaphragmatic potentials and electrical noise. Appropriate ICD shocks can rarely also be stimulated by the proarrhythmogenicity of lead implantation or ICD programming. Modifications of the waiting period to therapy, time to detection, detection window, antitachycardia pacing (ATP) stimulation and supraventricular discrimination algorithms may minimize ICD shocks. Some stimulation algorithms may improve the hemodynamic stability during ES. In addition to ventricular ablation, blockade of the sympathetic autonomic nervous system and antiarrhythmic treatment are the main pillars of ES treatment. The best ES prevention, however, is optimized heart failure treatment, especially when a cardiac resynchronization with defibrillator (CRT-D) system is implanted.     

Prevalence, predictors, and mortality significance of the causative arrhythmia in patients with electrical storm

INTRODUCTION: Electrical storm (ES) is characterized by either refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). However, little is known about the prevalence, predictors, and mortality implications of the causative arrhythmia in ES. We sought to assess the prevalence, predictors, and survival significance of VT and VF as the causative arrhythmia of ES in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients from January 2000 to December 2002 who presented to the ICD clinic with > or = 2 separate ventricular arrhythmic episodes requiring shock within 24 hours were included in the study. ICD interrogation confirmed the number of shocks and provided electrograms for interpretation of the causative arrhythmia. Patients were grouped as VF or VT according to the causative arrhythmia. Their prevalence, predictors, and mortality rates were compared. Of 2,028 patients assessed in the ICD clinic, 208 (10%) presented with ES. VF was the cause of ES in 99 of 208 patients, for an overall prevalence of 48%. Original ICD indication, coronary artery disease, and amiodarone therapy were predictive for the causative arrhythmia. There was no mortality difference between the VT and VF groups; however, both groups had significantly increased mortality compared to a control ICD population without ES. CONCLUSION: VF is the causative arrhythmia for a sizable proportion of patients with ES. The initial ICD indication, coronary artery disease, and amiodarone therapy are predictors of the causative arrhythmias in ES. There does not appear to be any mortality difference between ES patients with VT and VF, but mortality is increased in patients with ES versus control ICD patients without ES.     

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。     

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。     

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.     

Elektrischer Sturm

Background

Electrical storm (ES) represents a state of cardiac electrical instability which manifests by multiple episodes of ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT) within a short time. In patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), ES is best defined as ≥ 3 appropriate VT detections in 24 h, treated by antitachycardia pacing or shock. The number of shocks and inappropriate detections are irrelevant for the definition. Within a period of 3 years ES occurred in approximately 25 % of ICD patients with secondary prophylaxis indications of sudden cardiac death. Although the definition includes minor arrhythmic events, ES frequently consists of up to 50 VTs. Potential triggers found in 20–65 % of patients include new/deteriorated heart failure, diarrhea/hypokalemia, changes in antiarrhythmic medication, association with other illnesses, and psychological stress. In most patients ES consists of monomorphic VT indicating the presence of reentry while ventricular fibrillation indicating acute ischemia is rare.

Material and methods

ES seems to have a low immediate mortality (1 %) but frequently (50–80 %) leads to hospitalization. Long-term prognostic implications of ES are unclear. The key intervention in ES is a reduction of the elevated sympathetic tone by beta blockers and also frequently sedation. Amiodarone i.v. is highly efficient in ES while class I antiarrhythmic drugs are usually unsuccessful. Substrate mapping and VT ablation may be useful in treatment and prevention of ES. Prevention of ES requires ICD programming systematically avoiding unnecessary shocks by long VT detection and numerous attempts of antitachycardia pacing before shock therapy which can fuel the sympathetic tone and prolong ES.     

埋藏式心脏转复除颤器植入后电风暴的临床观察

目的探讨应用埋藏式心脏转复除颤器(ICD)后出现电风暴现象的一般规律及诊治经验。方法总结1996年8月至2008年6月间96例ICD植入患者术后电风暴的发生率、发生原因及治疗方法 ,并比较单次电风暴患者与多次电风暴患者在年龄、随访时间、首次电风暴发生时间及左室射血分数(LVEF)等方面的指标。结果随访时间中位数为12个月,有12例(12.5%)发生了电风暴,首次电风暴事件距离ICD植入术后的中位数为31天。相对于单次电风暴患者而言,发生多次电风暴患者的LVEF较低。结论 ICD患者植入术后,电风暴的发生率为12.5%,多次发生电风暴的患者具有低LVEF的特点。     

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。     

Analysis of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial

INTRODUCTION: The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is commonly used to treat patients with documented sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). Arrhythmia recurrence rates in these patients are high, but which patients will receive a therapy and the forms of arrhythmia recurrence (VT or VF) are poorly understood. METHODS AND RESULTS: The therapy delivered by the ICD was examined in 449 patients randomized to ICD therapy in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial. Events triggering ICD shocks or antitachycardia pacing (ATP) were reviewed for arrhythmia diagnosis, clinical symptoms, activity at the onset of the arrhythmia, and appropriateness and results of therapy. Both shock and ATP therapies were frequent by 2 years, with 68% of patients receiving some therapy or having an arrhythmic death. An appropriate shock was delivered in 53% of patients, and ATP was delivered in 68% of patients who had ATP activated. The first arrhythmia treated in follow-up was diagnosed as VT (63%), VF (13%), supraventricular tachycardia (18%), unknown arrhythmia (3%), or due to ICD malfunction or inappropriate sensing (3%). Acceleration of an arrhythmia by the ICD occurred in 8% of patients who received any therapy. No physical activity consistently preceded arrhythmias, nor did any single clinical factor predict the symptoms of the arrhythmia. CONCLUSION: Delivery of ICD therapy in AVID patients was common, primarily due to VT. Inappropriate ICD therapy occurred frequently. Use of ICD therapy as a surrogate endpoint for death in clinical trials should be avoided.