4.4 Article

Atrial electrophysiology is altered by acute hypercapnia but not hypoxemia: Implications for promotion of atrial fibrillation in pulmonary disease and sleep apnea

期刊

HEART RHYTHM
卷 7, 期 9, 页码 1263-1270

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2010.03.020

关键词

Atrial fibrillation; Electrophysiology; Hypercapnia; Hypoxemia; Sleep apnea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND Chronic pulmonary disease and sleep apnea have been associated with the development of atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to characterize the atrial electrical changes that occur with hypercapnia and hypoxemia and to determine their role in AF development. METHODS Seventeen sheep (6 control, 5 hypercapnia, 6 hypoxemia) underwent open chest electrophysiologic evaluation under autonomic blockade. A 64-electrode endocardial basket catheter was positioned in the right atrium, and 2 x 128 electrode epicardial plaques were sutured to the right atrial and left atrial appendages to determine atrial refractoriness (effective refractory period [ERP]) at 9 sites and 5 cycle lengths, conduction time to fixed points on each plaque, and AF vulnerability. RESULTS Hypercapnia was associated with a 152% lengthening of ERP from baseline and increased conduction time. ERPs rapidly returned to baseline, but recovery of conduction was delayed at least 117 +/- 24 minutes following resolution of hypercapnia. AF vulnerability was reduced during hypercapnia (with increased ERP) but increased significantly with subsequent return to eucapnia (when ERP normalized but conduction time remained prolonged). No significant changes in ERP, atrial conduction time, or AF vulnerability occurred in hypoxemic or control groups. CONCLUSION Differential recovery of ERP and conduction that occurs following hypercapnia might account for the increased vulnerability to AF observed in the phase after return to eucapnia. This may explain in part the increased prevalence of AF in pulmonary disease and sleep apnea.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据