论文部分内容阅读
目的:评价右室间隔部(RVS)起搏的稳定性及对比RVS起搏和右室心尖部(RVA)对血流动力学影响。方法:22例植入DDD起搏器患者,分为RVS组和RVA组,比较两组术中及术后起搏参数及血流动力学参数变化。结果:RVS组术中测试起搏阈值及电流均高于RVA组,术后1个月差异无统计学意义;RVS组QRS波群宽度较RVA组小(P<0.05);RVS组X线曝光时间较RVA组长(P<0.05);术中阻抗及R波振幅无显著差异。术后6个月,RVS组左室射血分数(LVEF)、心脏指数(CI)、每搏量(SV)、二尖瓣血流E峰和A峰最大充盈速度比值(E/A)较RVA组明显提高,术前两组无明显差异。结论:RVS起搏安全、有效,RVS起搏血流动力学参数明显优于RVA组。
PURPOSE: To evaluate the stability of right ventricular septal (RVS) pacing and to compare hemodynamic effects of RVS pacing and right ventricular apex (RVA). Methods: Twenty-two patients with DDD pacemaker implantation were divided into RVS group and RVA group. The changes of intraoperative and postoperative pacing parameters and hemodynamic parameters were compared between the two groups. Results: The intra-operative pacing threshold and current in the RVS group were significantly higher than those in the RVA group. There was no significant difference at 1 month after operation in RVS group. The width of QRS complex in RVS group was smaller than that of RVA group (P <0.05) Time than RVA group leader (P <0.05); intraoperative impedance and R wave amplitude no significant difference. Six months after operation, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), cardiac index (CI), stroke volume (SV), peak E velocity of mitral flow and peak A filling velocity ratio (E / A) RVA group was significantly improved, no significant difference between the two groups before surgery. Conclusions: RVS pacing is safe and effective. The parameters of RVS pacing hemodynamics are obviously superior to RVA group.