心室不同部位起搏对正常犬和扩张型心肌病心力衰竭犬模型在体心肌跨室壁复极离散的影响

实验以正常犬和扩张型心肌病心力衰竭犬(dilated cardiomyopathy congestive heart failure,DCM-CHF)模型为对象、以心肌跨室壁复极离散的相关参数为指标,研究左心室心外膜起搏、双心室起搏(模拟临床上心室再同步治疗的方法)后的心肌电生理特性变化。实验以快速右心室起搏的方法制备DCM-CHF犬模型;正常犬和DCM-CHF犬均经射频消融希氏束制备三度房室传导阻滞模型;采用同步记录犬体表心电图和内膜下、中层、外膜下三层心肌单相动作电位(monophasic action potentials,MAP)的方法,测定不同部位起搏时的QT间期、Tpeak-Tend(Tp-Te)间期和三层心肌的单相动作电位时程(MAP duration,MAPD)、跨室壁复极离散度(transmural dispersion of repolaization,TDR)。结果显示:在正常犬,左室心外膜与双心室起搏后三层心肌的MAPD均延长,同时TDR增大(左室心外膜起搏47.16 ms、双心室起搏37.54 ms、右室心内膜起搏26.75 ms,P<0.001),体表心电图Tp-Te间期的变化与之平行;在DCM-CHF犬较正常犬已表现出中层心肌MAPD延长(276.30 ms vs 257.35 ms,P<0.0001)和TDR(33.8 ms vs 27.58 ms,P=0.002)增大的基础上,左室心外膜参与起搏后仍进一步使三层心肌的MAPD延长和TDR增大。研究结果提示,左室心外膜起搏和双心室起搏后使内膜下、中层     

Prenatal stress alters reproductive responses of rats in behavioral estrus and paced mating of hormone-primed rats

Adult female offspring of dams exposed to gestational stress (prenatal stress, PNS) may show altered reproductive behavior, exploration in novel environments, and/or social interactions than do their non-PNS counterparts. These behavioral differences may be more readily observed in a seminatural, paced mating paradigm, in which females have greater control of their sexual contacts, than in a standard mating situation. Adult offspring of dams exposed to restraint and lights for 45 min on Gestational Days 14-20 (PNS) were compared with those not subjected to stress (non-PNS, control condition). The motor, reproductive, and sociosexual behaviors of hormone-primed (Experiment 1) or cycling adult offspring in behavioral estrus (Experiment 2) were examined following 20 min of restraint stress under bright lights (postnatal stress). Hormone-primed PNS rats displayed less motor behavior in a novel arena than did non-PNS rats. In a standard mating test, hormone-primed PNS females tended to be more aggressive toward the male than were non-PNS rats. In a seminatural mating situation, hormone-primed PNS females showed increased avoidance behavior, such as longer latencies to the initial intromission, greater return latencies following mounts and intromissions, and more exiting subsequent to mounts and intromissions, than did non-PNS rats. PNS rats in behavioral estrus had decreased incidence and intensity of lordosis, and fewer solicitation behaviors, in both standard or paced mating situations, in which latency to and number of mounts were also increased. Thus, hormone-primed PNS rats exposed to restraint showed more avoidance behaviors in paced mating situations, while cycling PNS rats in behavioral estrus had greater disruption of reproductive responses in standard or paced mating paradigms than did non-PNS control rats.     

Haemodynamic evaluation of alternative left ventricular endocardial pacing sites in clinical non-responders to cardiac resynchronisation therapy

Introduction

Non response to cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) may be related to the position of the coronary sinus lead.

Methods

We studied the acute haemodynamic response (AHR) from alternative left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing sites in clinical non-responders to CRT. AHR and the interval from QRS onset to LV sensing (Q-LV interval) from four different endocardial pacing sites were evaluated in 24 clinical non-responders. A rise in LVdP/dtmax ≥ 15 % from baseline was considered a positive AHR. We also compared the AHR from endocardial with the corresponding epicardial lead position.

Results

The implanted system showed an AHR ≥ 15 % in 5 patients. In 9 of the 19 remaining patients, AHR could be elevated to ≥ 15 % by endocardial LV pacing. The optimal endocardial pacing site was posterolateral. There was no significant difference in AHR between the epicardial and the corresponding endocardial position. The longest Q-LV interval corresponded with the best AHR in 12 out of the 14 patients with a positive AHR, with an average Q-LV/QRS width ratio of 90 %.

Conclusions

Acute haemodynamic testing may indicate an alternative endocardial pacing site with a positive AHR in clinical non-responders. The Q-LV interval is a strongly correlated with the optimal endocardial pacing site. Endocardial pacing opposite epicardial sites does not result in a better AHR.     

帕金森病黑质多巴胺神经元易损伤性的内在因素

帕金森病（Parkinson’s disease,PD）主要症状是由中脑黑质致密部（substantia nigra compact,SNc）的多巴胺（dopamine,DA）神经元死亡引起。帕金森病发病过程中,路易小体病理（Lewy pathology,LP）和线粒体功能障碍最为突出,但SNc 多巴胺神经元为什么特别易遭受这两种病理损害尚不清楚。研究表明,与脑内其他神经元相比,SNc 多巴胺神经元具有特殊的解剖形态、生理和生化表型。SNc 多巴胺神经元具有高分支无髓鞘轴突和众多的突触终端,突触末梢物质和能量代谢的高要求需要大量的线粒体,巨大突触终端增加了突触蛋白质的表达、转运和降解的负担。SNc 多巴胺神经元具有独特的自主起搏电活动和缓慢钙振荡特性,Cav1-3钙通道活动及后续的级联反应增加了SNc 多巴胺神经元线粒体负担,增加了基础氧化应激、线粒体损伤和自噬,降低了处理错误折叠蛋白质的能力。SNc 多巴胺神经元特有的神经递质——多巴胺易被氧化成为反应性醌,具有潜在毒性,可破坏葡糖脑苷脂酶导致其活性降低,引起线粒体氧化应激和溶酶体功能障碍。总之,SNc 多巴胺神经元具有的这些内在因素综合起来,可能导致了其对线粒体功能障碍和路易小体病理损伤的易感性,并且SNc 多巴胺神经元所处的神经网络障碍也促使了帕金森病的进展。认识到这些特征会对研究帕金森病相关病理学机制和阻止疾病进展创造新的机会。     

Desynchronization in a cardiac resynchronization device induced by a pacemaker-mediated tachycardia algorithm

This report describes the occurrence of desynchronization in a patient with a cardiac resynchronization device programmed with an active pacemaker-mediated tachycardia algorithm based on AV delay modification. Desynchronization was precipitated by sinus tachycardia and the abrupt return of the prevailing AV delay that followed the periodic prolongation of the AV delay mandated by activity of the algorithm. Prevention of desynchronization in this setting requires programming a right ventricular upper rate interval longer than the sum of the programmed ventriculoatrial interval and the AV delay.     

Endocardial transvenous pacing in patients with surgically palliated univentricular hearts: A review on different techniques,problems and management

Fontan surgery and its modifications have improved survival in various forms of univentricular hearts. A regular atrial rhythm with atrioventricular synchrony is one of the most important prerequisite for the long-term effective functioning of this preload dependent circulation. A significant proportion of these survivors need various forms of pacing for bradyarrhythmias, often due to sinus nodal dysfunction and sometimes due to atrioventricular nodal block. The diversion of the venous flows away from the cardiac chambers following this surgery takes away the simpler endocardial pacing options through the superior vena cava. The added risks of thromboembolism associated with endocardial leads in systemic ventricles have made epicardial pacing as the procedure of choice. However challenges in epicardial pacing include surgical adhesions, increased pacing thresholds leading to early battery depletion and frequent lead fractures. When epicardial pacing fails, endocardial lead placement is equally challenging due to lack of access to the cardiac chambers in Fontan circulation. This review discusses the univentricular heart morphologies that may warrant pacing, issues about epicardial pacing, different techniques for endocardial pacing in patients with disconnected superior vena cava, pacing in different modifications of Fontan surgeries, issues of systemic thromboembolism with endocardial leads, atrioventricular valve regurgitation attributed to pacing leads and device infections. In a vast majority of patients following Glenn shunt and Senning surgery, an epicardial pacing and lead replacement is always feasible though technically very difficult. This article highlights the different options of transatrial and transventricular endocardial pacing.     

Comparison between laser sheaths,femoral approach and rotating mechanical sheaths for lead extraction

IntroductionEfficiency and safety are important features in the selection of lead extraction tools. We report our experience with different endovascular techniques to extract individual pacing and defibrillator leads.MethodsThis is a single-centre study of consecutive lead extraction procedures from 1997 until 2019. A total of 1725 leads were extracted in 775 patients. Direct traction sufficed for 588 leads, and 22 leads were primarily removed by surgery. The endovascular techniques used in the remainder were a laser sheath (190 leads), the femoral approach (717 leads) and rotating mechanical sheaths (208 leads).ResultsThe three approaches were comparably effective in completely removing the leads (p = 0.088). However, there were more major complications with the laser sheath than with the femoral approach or rotating mechanical sheaths (8.4%, 0.5% and 1.2%, respectively). Therefore, the procedural result—extraction without major complications—was significantly better with both the femoral approach and rotating mechanical sheaths than with the laser sheath (p < 0.001). This result was confirmed after propensity score matching to compensate for differences between lead cohorts (p = 0.007). Cross-over to another endovascular tool was necessary in 7.9%, 7.1% and 8.2% of laser, femoral and rotating mechanical attempts, respectively.ConclusionAll three endovascular lead extraction techniques showed comparable efficacy. However, there were significantly more major complications using the laser sheath compared to the femoral approach or rotating mechanical sheaths, leading us to abandon the laser technique. Importantly, no single endovascular technique sufficed to successfully extract all leads.     

A single-centre prospective evaluation of left bundle branch area pacemaker implantation characteristics

BackgroundLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been introduced as a physiological pacing technique with synchronous left ventricular activation. It was our aim to evaluate the feasibility and learning curve of the technique, as well as the electrical characteristics of LBBAP.Methods and resultsLBBAP was attempted in 80 consecutive patients and electrocardiographic characteristics were evaluated during intrinsic rhythm, right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP) and LBBAP. Permanent lead implantation was successful in 77 of 80 patients (96%). LBBAP lead implantation time and fluoroscopy time shortened significantly from 33 ± 16 and 21 ± 13 min to 17 ± 5 and 12 ± 7 min, respectively, from the first 20 to the last 20 patients. Left bundle branch (LBB) capture was achieved in 54 of 80 patients (68%). In 36 of 45 patients (80%) with intact atrioventricular conduction and narrow QRS, an LBB potential (LBB_pot) was present with an LBB_pot to onset of QRS interval of 22 ± 6 ms. QRS duration increased significantly more during RVSP (141 ± 20 ms) than during LBBAP (125 ± 19 ms), compared to 130 ± 30 ms without pacing. An even clearer difference was observed for QRS area, which increased significantly more during RVSP (from 32 ± 16 µVs to 73 ± 20 µVs) than during LBBAP (41 ± 15 µVs). QRS area was significantly smaller in patients with LBB capture compared to patients without LBB capture (43 ± 18 µVs vs 54 ± 21 µVs, respectively). In patients with LBB capture (n = 54), the interval from the pacing stimulus to R‑wave peak time in lead V6 was significantly shorter than in patients without LBB capture (75 ± 14 vs 88 ± 9 ms, respectively).ConclusionLBBAP is a safe and feasible technique, with a clear learning curve that seems to flatten after 40–60 implantations. LBB capture is achieved in two-thirds of patients. Compared to RVSP, LBBAP largely maintains ventricular electrical synchrony at a level close to intrinsic (narrow QRS) rhythm.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-022-01679-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Initial experience,feasibility and safety of permanent left bundle branch pacing: results from a prospective single-centre study

BackgroundLeft bundle branch (LBB) pacing is a novel pacing technique which may serve as an alternative to both right ventricular pacing for symptomatic bradycardia and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). A substantial amount of data is reported by relatively few, highly experienced centres. This study describes the first experience of LBB pacing in a high-volume device centre.MethodsSuccess rates (i.e. the ability to achieve LBB pacing), electrophysiological parameters and complications at implant and up to 6 months of follow-up were prospectively assessed in 100 consecutive patients referred for various pacing indications.ResultsThe mean age was 71 ± 11 years and 65% were male. Primary pacing indication was atrioventricular (AV) block in 40%, CRT in 42%, and sinus node dysfunction or refractory atrial fibrillation prior to AV node ablation in 9% each. Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was < 50% in 57% of patients, mean baseline QRS duration 145 ± 34 ms. Overall LBB pacing was successful in 83 of 100 (83%) patients but tended to be lower in patients with CRT pacing indication (69%, p = ns). Mean left ventricular activation time (LVAT) during LBB pacing was 81 ms and paced QRS duration was 120 ± 19 ms. LBB capture threshold and R‑wave sense at implant was 0.74 ± 0.4 mV at 0.4 ms and 11.9 ± 5.9 V and remained stable at 6‑month follow-up. No complications occurred during implant or follow-up.ConclusionLBB pacing for bradycardia pacing and resynchronisation therapy can be easily adopted by experienced implanters, with favourable success rates and safety profile.