Rationale:Acute myocardial infarction in the presence of right bundle branch block.Patient concerns:A 70-year-old,male heavy smoker presented with angina and hypertension.Interventions:Electrocardiography,intravenous ...Rationale:Acute myocardial infarction in the presence of right bundle branch block.Patient concerns:A 70-year-old,male heavy smoker presented with angina and hypertension.Interventions:Electrocardiography,intravenous nitroglycerin infusion,intravenous streptokinase infusion.Diagnosis:Acute myocardial infarction in the presence of with changeable trifascicular heart block.Outcomes:Dramatic clinical improvement with electrocardiographic ST-segment (whether elevation or reciprocal ST-depression) resolution.Lessons:Acute myocardial infarction may be associated right bundle branch block.Accompanied trifascicular heart block had pre-streptokinase left anterior fascicular block with left axis deviation and post-streptokinase left posterior fascicular block with right axis deviation.展开更多
Objective To compare the short-term clinical effect and electrical parameters of His-purkinje bundle pacing(HPBP) and right ventricular inflow tract septal pacing(RVIP) in the elderly. Methods Between April 2017 and S...Objective To compare the short-term clinical effect and electrical parameters of His-purkinje bundle pacing(HPBP) and right ventricular inflow tract septal pacing(RVIP) in the elderly. Methods Between April 2017 and September 2019, sixty patients with indications for permanent cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy in Beijing Anzhen Hospital were divided into the HPBP and RVIP groups, and were analyzed. A ventricular pacing lead was implanted in left ventricular septal sites with left bundle potentials or His potentials in the HPBP group. The lead was placed in right ventricular inflow tract septal sites close to distal His-bundle regions without potentials from the His-purkinje conduction system in the RVIP group. Lead impedance, R wave amplitude, pacing thresholds, QRS duration, left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF), and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter(LVEDD), mitral regurgitation area reflux, QTc, T wave directivity, Tp-e and Tp-e/QT ratio were compared between the HPBP and RVIP groups during the procedure and the short-month follow-up. Results No significant differences were found in lead impedance, R wave amplitude, QRS duration, LVEF, LVEDD, mitral regurgitation area reflux, QTc, T wave directivity, Tp-e and Tp-e/QT ratio between the HPBP and RVIP groups. However, the pacing threshold was significantly lower in the HPBP group than in the RVIP group(0.7 ± 0.2 vs. 0.9 ± 0.3 V, P = 0.02). Conclusions The efficacy and electrical parameters of HPBP is comparable with RVIP during the procedure and the short-term follow-up.展开更多
目的探讨左束支区域起搏(left bundle branch area pacing,LBBaP)对房室传导阻滞(AVB)患者术后新发心房颤动(new-onset atrial fibrillation,NOAF)和心房高频事件(atrial high rate episodes,AHREs)的影响。方法回顾性纳入84例行起搏治...目的探讨左束支区域起搏(left bundle branch area pacing,LBBaP)对房室传导阻滞(AVB)患者术后新发心房颤动(new-onset atrial fibrillation,NOAF)和心房高频事件(atrial high rate episodes,AHREs)的影响。方法回顾性纳入84例行起搏治疗的三度房室传导阻滞(ⅢAVB)患者,根据心室电极位置分为LBBaP组(n=42)和右室间隔部起搏(RVSP)组(n=42)。比较两组患者术前术后QRS波时限(QRSd)、心室起搏参数,并发症、脑卒中事件和NOAF、AHREs发生率。结果(1)LBBaP组术后NOAF、AHREs发生率均低于RVSP组(P<0.05)。(2)LBBaP组的p-QRSd短于RVSP组(P<0.05)。(3)两组患者心室起搏参数、并发症及脑卒中事件发生率之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论相对于右室起搏,LBBaP术后AHREs、NOAF的发生率较低,可改善患者预后。展开更多
Pacemaker post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement is related to multifactorial risk.Nwaedozie et al brought to the body of evidence electrocardiogram and clinical findings.However,procedural characteristics have a...Pacemaker post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement is related to multifactorial risk.Nwaedozie et al brought to the body of evidence electrocardiogram and clinical findings.However,procedural characteristics have at least as much impact on the final need for a permanent pacemaker and potentially on the pacing rate.In this regard,long-term follow-up and understanding of the impact of long-term stimulation is of utmost importance.展开更多
Inadvertent Lead Malposition in Left Ventricle is a rare and underdiagnosed incident, which may occur during implantation of cardiac electronic devices and may remain asymptomatic. We reported the case of a 71-year-ol...Inadvertent Lead Malposition in Left Ventricle is a rare and underdiagnosed incident, which may occur during implantation of cardiac electronic devices and may remain asymptomatic. We reported the case of a 71-year-old man who was implanted with a ventricular single-chamber pacemaker for a slow atrial fibrillation with syncope and whose routine transthoracic echocardiography 23 months after implantation displayed a malposition of the pacemaker lead into the Left Ventricle through a patent foramen oval. The patient was asymptomatic. The electrocardiogram showed right bundle branch block QRS-paced morphology with a positive QRS pattern in V1, a median paced QRS axis on the frontal plane at -120°, a Precordial transition on V5. At the lateral Chest X-ray the lead curved backwards to the spine. Given the age of this old patient who already received oral anticoagulant for Atrial Fibrillation and the Lead malposition discovered 23 months after pacemaker’s implantation, we decided to maintain the lead in LV and continue anticoagulation.展开更多
文摘Rationale:Acute myocardial infarction in the presence of right bundle branch block.Patient concerns:A 70-year-old,male heavy smoker presented with angina and hypertension.Interventions:Electrocardiography,intravenous nitroglycerin infusion,intravenous streptokinase infusion.Diagnosis:Acute myocardial infarction in the presence of with changeable trifascicular heart block.Outcomes:Dramatic clinical improvement with electrocardiographic ST-segment (whether elevation or reciprocal ST-depression) resolution.Lessons:Acute myocardial infarction may be associated right bundle branch block.Accompanied trifascicular heart block had pre-streptokinase left anterior fascicular block with left axis deviation and post-streptokinase left posterior fascicular block with right axis deviation.
文摘Objective To compare the short-term clinical effect and electrical parameters of His-purkinje bundle pacing(HPBP) and right ventricular inflow tract septal pacing(RVIP) in the elderly. Methods Between April 2017 and September 2019, sixty patients with indications for permanent cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy in Beijing Anzhen Hospital were divided into the HPBP and RVIP groups, and were analyzed. A ventricular pacing lead was implanted in left ventricular septal sites with left bundle potentials or His potentials in the HPBP group. The lead was placed in right ventricular inflow tract septal sites close to distal His-bundle regions without potentials from the His-purkinje conduction system in the RVIP group. Lead impedance, R wave amplitude, pacing thresholds, QRS duration, left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF), and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter(LVEDD), mitral regurgitation area reflux, QTc, T wave directivity, Tp-e and Tp-e/QT ratio were compared between the HPBP and RVIP groups during the procedure and the short-month follow-up. Results No significant differences were found in lead impedance, R wave amplitude, QRS duration, LVEF, LVEDD, mitral regurgitation area reflux, QTc, T wave directivity, Tp-e and Tp-e/QT ratio between the HPBP and RVIP groups. However, the pacing threshold was significantly lower in the HPBP group than in the RVIP group(0.7 ± 0.2 vs. 0.9 ± 0.3 V, P = 0.02). Conclusions The efficacy and electrical parameters of HPBP is comparable with RVIP during the procedure and the short-term follow-up.
文摘目的探讨左束支区域起搏(left bundle branch area pacing,LBBaP)对房室传导阻滞(AVB)患者术后新发心房颤动(new-onset atrial fibrillation,NOAF)和心房高频事件(atrial high rate episodes,AHREs)的影响。方法回顾性纳入84例行起搏治疗的三度房室传导阻滞(ⅢAVB)患者,根据心室电极位置分为LBBaP组(n=42)和右室间隔部起搏(RVSP)组(n=42)。比较两组患者术前术后QRS波时限(QRSd)、心室起搏参数,并发症、脑卒中事件和NOAF、AHREs发生率。结果(1)LBBaP组术后NOAF、AHREs发生率均低于RVSP组(P<0.05)。(2)LBBaP组的p-QRSd短于RVSP组(P<0.05)。(3)两组患者心室起搏参数、并发症及脑卒中事件发生率之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论相对于右室起搏,LBBaP术后AHREs、NOAF的发生率较低,可改善患者预后。
文摘Pacemaker post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement is related to multifactorial risk.Nwaedozie et al brought to the body of evidence electrocardiogram and clinical findings.However,procedural characteristics have at least as much impact on the final need for a permanent pacemaker and potentially on the pacing rate.In this regard,long-term follow-up and understanding of the impact of long-term stimulation is of utmost importance.
文摘Inadvertent Lead Malposition in Left Ventricle is a rare and underdiagnosed incident, which may occur during implantation of cardiac electronic devices and may remain asymptomatic. We reported the case of a 71-year-old man who was implanted with a ventricular single-chamber pacemaker for a slow atrial fibrillation with syncope and whose routine transthoracic echocardiography 23 months after implantation displayed a malposition of the pacemaker lead into the Left Ventricle through a patent foramen oval. The patient was asymptomatic. The electrocardiogram showed right bundle branch block QRS-paced morphology with a positive QRS pattern in V1, a median paced QRS axis on the frontal plane at -120°, a Precordial transition on V5. At the lateral Chest X-ray the lead curved backwards to the spine. Given the age of this old patient who already received oral anticoagulant for Atrial Fibrillation and the Lead malposition discovered 23 months after pacemaker’s implantation, we decided to maintain the lead in LV and continue anticoagulation.
