摘要
为比较激素电极、靶头电极和螺旋电极的慢性阈值,并探讨其优缺点,对激素电极(26条)、靶头电极(14条)和螺旋电极(20条)的慢性阈值进行了观察。60条电极与单腔或双腔起搏器均系同一公司生产。为提高可比性,仅有5.0 V 电压输出的起搏器不作观察对象。激素电极、非激素电极分别随访18(3～60)和64(3～122)月。结果显示2.5 V 时激素电极的慢性脉宽阈值(0.07±0.03 ms)低于靶头电极(0.11±0.05 ms),后者又低于螺旋电极(0.25±0.13 ms),P 均<0.01。全部病例心房和心室感知均良好。电压输出均采用2.5 V,激素电极、靶头电极和螺旋电极起搏分别置脉宽输出于0.2,0.4和0.8 ms,则80%以上(分别为85%、86%及80%)的病例可达到能量阈值的3倍以上的安全范围。激素电极中有19条可置于1.6 V 和0.3 ms 起搏,其耗能仅为5.0V和0.5 ms(25μJ)的6.1%。即每个脉冲可节能93.9%,从而可延长起搏器的工作寿命。
The purpose of this paper is to compare the chronic thresholds between steroid (n=26),target (n=14) and screw-in(n=20) electrodes,and to assess their usefulness and limitation.For increasing the comparability,only the same pacing system (Medtronic,Inc.)was observed with a follow-up of 18(3-60)months for the steroid and 64 (3-122)months for the non-steroid leads.The results showed that at 2.5 V,the chronic pulse width threshold of steroid lead (0.07±0.03 ms) was significantly lower(P<0.01) than that of target lead (0.11±0.5 ms),the latter was lower (P<0.01) than that of screw-in lead (0.25±0.13 ms).Sensing was good in all cases.Pulse width out- puts were set at 0.2,0.4 and 0.8 ms respectively in three kinds of pacing leads at 2.5 V,having a safety margin of more than three times the chronic energy thresholds.91%(19 leads) of implanted cases with steroid leads were programmed to a output of 1.6 V and 0.3 ms,thus the pulse energy outputs were only 6.1% of nominal settings (5 V and 0.5 ms) so as to increase the longevity of pacemaker.
出处
《中国心脏起搏与心电生理杂志》
1996年第1期16-18,共3页
Chinese Journal of Cardiac Pacing and Electrophysiology
关键词
激素电极
靶头电极
螺旋电极
慢性阈值
起搏器
Steroid electrode
Target electrode
Screw-in electrode
Chronic threshold
Energy threshold Longevity
