摘要
目的探讨低位房间隔起搏与右心耳起搏在植入操作时间、起搏参数方面的差异。方法选取40例因窦房结功能障碍或成人获得性房室传导阻滞导致的缓慢型心律失常行起搏治疗的患者分为两组。其中,房间隔组20例,采用主动固定螺旋电极行低位房间隔起搏;右心耳组20例,采用被动固定翼状电极行右心耳起搏。对比两组电极植入操作时间,电极植入时、术后1个月、3个月的起搏参数(阈值和阻抗)。结果房间隔组与右心耳组比较,心房电极植入操作时间和起搏参数在术中、术后1个月、3个月差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论低位房间隔起搏与右心耳起搏具有相似的电极植入操作时间以及相同的起搏参数,为临床起搏治疗的有效部位。
Objectives To investigate the differences between low atrial septum pacing and right atrial appendage pacing in duration of implanting operation and pacing parameters.Methods Totally 40 patients with slow arrhythmia caused by sinus node dysfunction or adult-acquired atrioventricular block given pacing therapy were enrolled in this study.All the subjects were randomly divided into two groups.A number of 20 cases in atrial septum group accepted active fixation electrode for low atrial septum pacing,and 20 in right atrial appendage group accepted passive fixation electrode in fight atrial appendage pacing.Durations of atrial lead implantation and pacing parameters at operation,1 month and 3 months after operation were compared between the two groups （threshold and impedance）.Results No significant difference in duration of atrial lead implantation and pacing parameters at implantation,1 month and 3 months after operation was observed between the two groups （P〉0.05）.Conclusions There are similar durations of atrial lead implantation and pacing parameters in low atrial septum pacing and right atrial appendage pacing,which are both effective.
出处
《岭南心血管病杂志》
2014年第4期457-459,共3页
South China Journal of Cardiovascular Diseases
关键词
房间隔起搏
右心耳起搏
心律失常
atrial septum pacing
right atrial appendage pacing
arrhythmia
