NHÌN LẠI NHỮNG CHỈ ĐỊNH KINH ĐIỂN CỦA MÁY TẠO NHỊP TIM TRÊN CƠ SỞ CÁC NGHIÊN CỨU LÂM SÀNG
Tóm tắt
NHÌN LẠI NHỮNG CHỈ ĐỊNH KINH ĐIỂN CỦA MÁY TẠO NHỊP TIM TRÊN CƠ SỞ CÁC NGHIÊN CỨU LÂM SÀNG
Tài liệu tham khảo
1. Schecter DC. Modern era of artificial cardiac pacemakers. In schecter DC. Electrical Cardiac Stimulation. Minneapolis, Medtronic, 1983 p: 110-134.
2. Senning A. Physiologic P wave stimulator. J Thora Cardio Surg 1959;38:639.
3. Tạ Tiến Phước. Nghiên cứu các kỹ thuật và hiệu quả huyết động của phương pháp cấy máy tạo nhịp tim. Luận văn tiến sĩ Y khoa. Học viện Quân Y 103. Năm 2005.
4. Phạm Hữu Văn. Nghiên cứu ngưỡng kích thích, huyết động học trong điều trị rối loạn nhịp chậm bằng máy tạo nhịp tim. Luận văn tiến sĩ Y khoa. Học viện Quân Y 103. Năm 2010.
5. Mond HG, Irwin M, Morrilo C et al. The world survey of cardiac pacing and cardioverter defibrillators. PACE
;27: 955-964.
6. Brignole M. Sick sinus syndrome. Clin Geriatr Med 2002; 18:211-227.
7. Brandt J, Anderson H, Fhraeus T et al. Natural history of sinus node disease treated with atrial pacing in 213 patients: Implications for selection of stimulation mode. JACC 1992; 20: 633-639.
8. Menozzi C, Brignole M, Alboni P et al. The natural course of untreated sick sinus node disease syndrome and identification of the variables predictive of unfavourable outcome. Am J Cardiol 1998; 82:1205-1209.
9. Epstein AE, Di Marco JP, Ellenbogen KA et al. ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for Device- based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities. JACC 2008; 51:e1-e62.
10. Andersen HR, Thuesen L, Bagger JP et al. Prospective randomized trial of atrial versus ventricular pacing in sick sinus syndrome. Lancet 1994; 344:1523–1528.
11. Lamas GA, Orav EJ, Stambler BS et al. Pacemaker Selection in the Elderly Investigators: quality of life and clinical outcomes in elderly patients treated with ventricular pacing as compared with dual chamber pacing. N Engl J Med 1998;338:1097–1104.
12. Connolly SJ, Kerr CR, Gent M et al. Effects of physiologic pacing versus ventricular pacing on the risk of stroke and death due to cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1385–1391.
13. Lamas GA, Lee KL, Sweeney MO et al., for the Mode Selection Trial in Sinus-Node Dysfunction. Ventricular pacing or dual-chamber pacing for sinus-node dysfunction. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1854–1862.
14. Sweeney MO, Bank AJ, Nsah E et al. Minimizing Ventricular Pacing to Reduce Atrial Fibrillation in Sinus Node Disease. N Engl J Med 2007; 10: 1000-1008.
15. Vardas PE, Auricchio A, Blanc JJ et al. Guidelines for cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy.
European Heart J 2007;28:2256-2295.
17. Kristensen L, Nielsen JC, Pedersen AK, Mortensen PT, Andersen HR. AV block and changes in pacing mode during long-term follow-up of 399 consecutive patients with sick sinus syndrome treated with an AAI/AAIR pacemaker. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2001;24:358-365.
18. Hindman MC, Wagner GS, JaRo M, et al. The clinical significance of bundle branch block complicating acute myocardial infarction. Indications for temporary and permanent pacemaker insertion. Circulation. 1978;58:689-99.
19. Edhag O, Swahn A. Prognosis of patients with complete heart block or arrhythmic syncope who were not treated with artificial pacemakers. A long-term follow-up study of 101 patients. Acta Med Scand. 1976;200:457-63.
20. Lamas GA, Ellenbogen KA. Evidence base for pacemaker mode selection: from physiology to randomized trials.
Circulation 2004; 109: 443-49.
21. Zehender M, Buchner C, Meinertz T et al, Prevalence, mechanisms and risk stratification of sudden cardiac death in unipolar single chamber ventricular pacing. Circulation 1992; 85: 596
22. Toff WD, Camm J, Skehan D et al., the United Kingdom Pacing, Cardiovascular Events (UKPACE) Trial Investigators. Single-chamber versus dual-chamber pacing for high-grade atrioventricular block. N Engl J Med 2005;353:145–155.
23. Barold SS. Adverse effects of ventricular desynchronization induced by long term right ventricular pacing. JACC
; 42: 624.
24. Thambo JB, Bordachar P, Garrigue S et al. Detrimental ventricular remodeling in patients with congential complete heart block and chronic right ventricular apical pacing. Circulation 2004; 110:3766.
25. Deshmukh P, Casavant DA, Romanyshyn M et al. Permanent. Direct bundle pacing: A novel approach to cardiac pacing in patients with normal His-Purkinje activation. Circulation 2000;101: 869.
26. Victor F, Mansour H, Pavin D et al. Optimal right ventricular pacing site in classical pacemanker indications: A randomized crossover comparison of apical and septal pacing.
27. Cano O,Osca J, Tello MJ et al. Comparison of Effectiveness of Right Ventricular Septal Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Apical Pacing. Am J Cardiol 2010; 105: 1426-1432
28. Stambler BS, Ellenbogen K, Zhang X et al. ROVA Investigators. Right ventricular outflow versus apical pacing with congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2003;14: 1180.
29. Dd Cock CC, Guidici MC, Twisk JW. Comparison of the hemodynamic effects of right ventricular outflow tract pacing with right ventricular apex pacing, A quantitative review. Europace 2003; %:275.
30. Tse HF, Yu C, Wong KK et al. Functional abnormalities in patients with permanent right ventricular pacing. The effect of sites electrical stimulation. JACC 2002; 40: 1451.
31. Cano O,Osca J, Tello MJ et al. Pacing the right ventricular out flow tract septum. Europace 2012; 14: 28-35.
32. Kaye G et al. PROTECT-PACE STUDY - The Protection of Left Ventricular Function During Right Ventricular Pacing. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00461734.
33. Optimize RV Follow-up Selective Site Pacing Clinical Trial. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00949715.
34. Yee R et al. Right Apical Versus Septal Pacing Trial (RASP). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00199498
