4.6 Article

Ectopic atrial arrhythmias arising from canine thoracic veins during in vivo stellate ganglia stimulation

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.01321.2007

关键词

atrial tachycardia; electrophysiology; autonomic nervous system; sympathetic nerves; computerized mapping

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL78932, P01 HL78931, R01 HL58533, R01 HL71140] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of the present study was to determine whether thoracic veins may act as ectopic pacemakers and whether nodelike cells and rich sympathetic innervation are present at the ectopic sites. We used a 1,792-electrode mapping system with 1-mm resolution to map ectopic atrial arrhythmias in eight normal dogs during in vivo right and left stellate ganglia (SG) stimulation before and after sinus node crushing. SG stimulation triggered significant elevations of transcardiac norepinephrine levels, sinus tachycardia in all dogs, and atrial tachycardia in two of eight dogs. Sinus node crushing resulted in a slow junctional rhythm (51 +/- 6 beats/min). Subsequent SG stimulation induced 20 episodes of ectopic beats in seven dogs and seven episodes of pulmonary vein tachycardia in three dogs (cycle length 273 +/- 35 ms, duration 16 +/- 4 s). The ectopic beats arose from the pulmonary vein (n = 11), right atrium (n = 5), left atrium (n = 2), and the vein of Marshall (n = 2). There was no difference in arrhythmogenic effects of left vs. right SG stimulation (13/29 vs. 16/29 episodes, P = nonsignificant). There was a greater density of periodic acid Schiff-positive cells (P < 0.05) and sympathetic nerves (P < 0.05) at the ectopic sites compared with other nonectopic atrial sites. We conclude that, in the absence of a sinus node, thoracic veins may function as subsidiary pacemakers under heightened sympathetic tone, becoming the dominant sites of initiation of focal atrial arrhythmias that arise from sites with abundant sympathetic nerves and periodic acid Schiff-positive cells.

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

4.6
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