论文部分内容阅读
目的比较右室主动固定电极和被动电极导线应用结果,探索右室主动固定电极导线临床应用的可行性。方法需要安置体内埋藏式心脏起搏器患者59例,男20例,女39例:年龄54-92岁,平均为(75．6±23．8)岁;均为缓慢性心律失常或严重心力衰竭者。将其分为两组:被动电极组,30例,固定部位为右室心尖部;主动电极组,29例,电极固定部位为右室流出道。结果主动电极组和被动电极组即刻参数比较差异无统计学意义(P值均>0．05),在出院后随访的1、3、6个月内的时间电压和置入时比较差异无统计学意义(P值均>0．05),只有1例出现主动电极从右室流出道间隔部脱位．主动电极置入时间和曝光时间较被动电极明显延迟,差异有统计学意义(P值均<0．05)。结论使用主动固定电极进行右心室流出道心间隔部起搏是可行且安全的。
Objective To compare the results of active electrode fixation with passive electrode in right ventricle and explore the feasibility of clinical application of active electrode fixation in right ventricle. Methods 59 patients with buried pacemaker need to be placed in the hospital, including 20 males and 39 females, aged 54-92 years (mean, 75.6 ± 23.8 years), with bradyarrhythmia or severe heart failure Failure of people. It was divided into two groups: passive electrode group, 30 cases, the fixed part of the right ventricular apex; active electrode group, 29 cases, the electrode fixed part of the right ventricular outflow tract. Results There was no significant difference between the active electrode group and the passive electrode group immediately (P> 0.05). There was no statistical difference in the time and voltage between 1, 3 and 6 months after discharge Significance (P> 0.05), only 1 case of active electrode dislocation from the right ventricular outflow tract space. The active electrode placement time and exposure time were significantly delayed than the passive electrode, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion It is feasible and safe to use the active fixed electrode for right ventricular outflow tract septal pacing.