右房电极移位导致间歇性多部位肌肉跳动一例

1例男性患者 ,77岁 ,因高度至Ⅲ度房室阻滞 ,安置双腔起搏器。心房电极固定于右心耳 ,心室电极位于右室心尖部。术后 6h病人感到间歇性右腰部肌肉跳动 ,传至右胸壁肌肉跳动。心电监护示VAT起搏时并无肌肉跳动 ,而呈DVT方式起搏时则有肌肉跳动。最后经X线检查证实右房电极移位。重新安置电极后 ,起搏感知功能良好。     

低位房间隔起搏与右心耳起搏的临床对比研究

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.     

心房起搏脉冲传导延迟一例

患者女性 ,40岁 ,因病窦综合征置入起搏器 ,配用IS 1BI双极心房 /心室电极 ,心房电极于右心耳起搏时参数较好 ,但电极难以固定 ,无SP间期 (起搏脉冲至P波的时限 )延长 ;于是行右房上部起搏 ,发生起搏脉冲传导延迟 (SP间期 14 0ms)。术后起搏器工作正常 ,SP间期为 10 0ms。产生其SP延迟的原因不太明确。     

两种心房电极临床应用的对比研究

目的 比较两种心房电极的优缺点。方法 对临床应用的150例心房电极进行回顾性对比分析。结果 心房壁电极移位率为9．2%(6／65)，交叉感知率为7．5%(5／65)，心耳电极组未发现这两种并发症(P<0．01)。心房壁电极组急、慢性起搏阈值均高于心耳电级组(P<0．01)。心耳电极植入较心房壁电极容易。两种电投慢性期P波幅度差异无显著性，植入失败率分别为4.6％(S／65)和2．4％(2／85)(P<0．05)，随访4.29±3．13年，未发现工作异常情况。结论心耳电极植入较易，移位率、交叉感知率及术中、术后起搏阈值低为其优点。     

采用普通心房电极行右室流出道起搏的初步探讨

目的探讨心房J型电极在右室流出道(RVOT)起搏的临床应用。方法对8例采用普通心房电极行RVOT起搏(其中5例进行了永久性置入)的患者进行了起搏阈值测定及随访。结果心房电极行RVOT起搏,起搏阈值、R波振幅和电极阻抗与心尖部起搏比较无差异(P>0.05);操作简单、起搏成功率高。随访3~6个月无电极脱位,起搏功能良好。结论普通心房J型电极似可以替代螺旋电极行RVOT永久起搏。     

心脏起搏部位研究进展

在心脏起搏方式、起搏参数一定时 ,起搏部位是决定心脏起搏临床效果的重要因素。为了探讨心脏的最佳起搏部位 ,许多学者对各种部位的心脏起搏进行了大量的血流动力学和电生理学研究。1　右房起搏右房起搏可保持房室收缩、舒张的正常顺序及心房、心室各部分心肌的收缩和舒张同步 ,较右室起搏更接近生理状态。右心房肌平滑 ,肌小梁缺乏 ,翼状电极难以固定 ,而右心耳位于右房前上方 ,多数具有深凹的肌小梁结构 ,形成一个自然囊袋 ,有利于心房电极的放置与固定。因此 ,心房电极首选安置部位是右心耳 ,但右心耳或右心房游离壁起搏可导致房内和(或…     

3830电极在房间隔起搏中的临床观察

目的探讨Medtronic3830主动固定电极在右房间隔部起搏的可行性和安全性。方法44例需行DDD起搏的患者分为两组,房间隔组22例采用Medtronie3830主动固定电极,右心耳组22例采用Medtronic4574或stJude1642被动电极。通过比较植入时间、X线曝光时间、术中术后起搏参数、术后并发症来评价房间隔起搏的可行性。结果与右心耳组相比,房间隔组的植入时间和曝光时间稍有延长,两组的起搏参数及术后并发症无差异。房间隔组心房激动时间明显短于右心耳组[（94．6±30．8）msV8（135．5±20．3）ms,P〈0．05]。结论房间隔起搏安全可行,但操作难度稍大。     

不同起搏方式对心房电机械延迟影响的对比研究

了解双腔起搏 (DDD)患者右心耳起搏 (RAA)方式对心房电机械延迟 (AEMD)的影响。对 2 1例置入DDD的患者 ,用M型超声心动图结合同步心电图分别测量DDD方式及心房感知心室起搏 (VDD)方式下的AEMD。结果 :RAA起搏与窦性节律比较 ,AEMD明显增加 ,其中P波起始至中央纤维体 (CFB)运动发生的时间增加 2 8± 4ms、至CFB最大收缩振幅出现的时间增加 42± 3ms、至左房侧壁 (LLA)运动发生的时间增加 35± 5ms、至LLA最大收缩振幅出现的时间增加 34± 4ms (所有P <0 .0 0 1)。结论 :DDD患者右心耳起搏能明显增加AEMD     

植入性心脏起搏器更换时心室电极直接参数的变化

分析了本院 90年代以来更换起搏脉冲发生器时心室电极参数的直接测量结果。在 2 6例病人中 ,男 15例、女 11例 ,年龄 6 3 .9± 13.6 ( 19～ 90 )岁。Ⅲ度房室阻滞 14例、病窦综合征 12例。在更换手术中 ,应用起搏分析仪直接测量原心室起搏电极参数。结果 :至测量时原心室起搏电极在体内埋置时间为 114.2± 2 7.4( 5 8～ 179)个月。首次埋置时的起搏阈值为 0 .5 9± 0 .2 7V ,更换脉冲发生器时为 1.6 0± 0 .75V(P <0 .0 0 0 1) ,起搏阈值增加的幅度为198.1%± 141.1% ( 2 0 %～ 5 6 7% ) ,增加的绝对值为 1.0± 0 .7( 0 .1～ 3 .0 )V。更换脉冲发生器时 ,起搏电极阻抗 5 5 8.5± 136 .3Ω。更换起搏脉冲发生器后 ,继续使用原心室起搏电极 2 2例。术后随访 48.7± 30 .6 ( 6～ 96 )个月。 2例于更换术后 12 ,2 4个月 (即原心室起搏电极在体内埋置时间分别为 98,12 0个月 )分别出现起搏器感知功能不良。重新手术时发现 ,原心室电极起搏阈值或阻抗增高。其余病人起搏与感知功能均良好。结论 :植入性心室起搏电极使用约 10年后 ,大部分电极的直接测量参数仍在良好范围 ,可以考虑继续使用 ,但必须注意随访 ,定期复查     

主动固定电极导线行心脏特殊部位起搏的临床应用

目的探索主动固定电极导线行心脏特殊部位起搏临床应用的可行性和安全性。方法需要安置心脏起搏器患者88例,其中男54例、女34例,年龄67.6±24.3(28～91)岁。患者为缓慢性心律失常或者严重心力衰竭,放置主动固定电极导线,测定有关参数并随访观察。结果手术顺利完成,未出现严重并发症。共使用主动电极导线151根,其中心室电极导线88根(右室流出道间隔部80根,右室流入道间隔部5根,右室中间隔3根);心房电极63根(右心耳37根,低位房间隔10根,高位房间隔10根,心房侧壁6根)。起搏参数在电极导线置入15min后可达到理想值。术后7天及出院后1,3,6个月随访无电极导线脱位,起搏参数与置入时比较没有差异。结论使用主动固定电极进行心脏特殊部位起搏是可行和安全的。     

Cardiac Lead Extraction with a Novel Locking Stylet

Extraction of chronically implanted pacing and defibrillator leads is facilitated by using specialized locking stylets placed in the lead to allow application of traction and to stabilize the lead during sheath dissection of fibrotic tissue. We report the initial multicenter series of cases using a novel lead locking device (LLD). In 57 consecutive patients presenting at 6 institutions for lead extraction, 99 leads were treated using the LLD. After removing the pulse generator, leads were severed, the inner coil dilated and an LLD was successfully inserted and locked in the inner lumen of 95/99 (96±%) leads. With traction applied to the LLD, a variety of sheaths were advanced over the lead body to separate it from adhesions. In 97/99 (98±%) leads, all or most of the lead was removed via the implant vein; 2 leads were removed via the femoral vein. No major complications were observed. The LLD deploys safely and reliably, and provides stable support for advancement of dissecting sheaths.     

Percutaneous Extraction of Transvenous Defibrillator Leads Using the VascoExtor Pacing Lead Removal System

In the implantable cardioverter defibrillator era the necessity for lead removal is not negligible. A specially designed extraction lead system for percutaneous removal of such leads is lacking, in contrast to the existing pacing lead extraction systems. We report the successful percutaneous extraction of four implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads in three patients because of lead malfunction using a novel pacemaker lead extraction system, the VascoExtor (VascoMed) system. Three leads were successfully removed in two patients using traction with special locking stylets from the superior approach. One lead was removed using the system's additional extraction tools through the femoral approach. There were no complications. This preliminary experience shows that the VascoExtor (VascoMed) pacemaker lead extraction system can also be used in implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead extraction safely and effectively. In addition to the locking stylets, adjunct percutaneous extraction tools may be needed in some cases.     

铱分型镀覆和激素释放电极导线起搏参数的动态变化

为探讨激素释放电极导线(steroid eluting lead,SEL)和铱分型镀覆电极导线(fractally iridium coated lead,FICL)的起搏阈值和阻抗的变化,本研究回顾分析了2种导线术中、术后1和3个月的起搏阈值和阻抗的变化情况,并进行了比较。2001年1月～2003年12月置入的各种起搏器495台及配套的各类心房、心室起搏导线717根,其中509根为SEL,另208根为FICL。结果:FICL组术中起搏阈值显著低于SEL组(0.40±0.24V vs0.46±0.27V,P<0.05),术后1和3个月FICL组也低于SEL组,但无显著意义。FICL组术中阻抗显著高于SEL组(843±382Ωvs524±210Ω,P<0.01)。术后1和3个月也高于SEL(分别为714±263Ωvs520±241Ω;694±176Ωvs515±227Ω,allP<0.05)。结论:SEL和FICL均为低能量起搏电极导线,并可大幅度降低起搏能量消耗。FICL的感知和起搏功能可长时间保持稳定,并具有独特的感知优势。     

Optimization of Shocking Lead Configuration for Transvenous Atrial Defibrillation

Optimum Electrodes for Atrial Defibrillation. Introduction : High atrial defibrillation energy requirements (ADER) in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation (AF) may limit the acceptance of transvenous atrial defibrillation. We evaluated an optimized defibrillation electrode configuration that could help to reduce the ADKR in patients with AF.
Methods and Results : We tested ten different configurations in nine dogs with AF (3.33 ± 2.92 days) induced by rapid atrial pacing. The configurations were: right atrial (RA) appendage as anode und coronary sinus (CS) as cathode; RA and innominate vein (I) as anode to CS (cathode); RA-CS (anode) to I (cathode); I-CS (anode) to RA (cathode); RA and left lateral subcutaneous patch (P) as anode to CS (cathode); RA-CS (anode) to P (cathode); P-CS (anode) to RA (cathode); superior vena cava (SVC) and CS (anode) to RA (cathode); RA-CS (anode) to SVC (cathode); and RA-SVC (anode) to CS (cathode). ADER was defined as the voltage needed to defibrillate the atria in 10% to 90% of 20 consecutive shocks. Three lead systems had ADER lower than the RA (anode) to CS (cathode) configuration, which required a mean of 143 ± 58 volts. These three were: RA-SVC (anode) to CS (cathode) 103 ± 29 V; I-CS (anode) to RA (cathode) 129 ± 39 V; and P-CS (anode) to RA (cathode) 130 ± 38 V. The remaining configurations had ADER higher than the RA (anode) to CS (cathode) configuration.
Conclusion : Adding an additional shocking electrode may reduce ADER when compared with the RA (anode) to CS (cathode) configuration. This concept could he incorporated into future implantable atrial defibrillators or used for refractory patients undergoing temporary transvenous cardioversion.     

起搏电极导线脱位的临床探讨

报道 6例起搏器电极导线脱位 ,1例为VDD起搏器 ,其余 5例均为DDD起搏器。共 8根电极导线脱位 ,7根为电极导线游动、1根呈微脱位。脱位后 ,2例再次发生晕厥、3例有明显症状 ,脱位电极导线均为双极电极导线。与以往电极导线脱位率相比 ,双极电极导线在临床中应用增多后引起的起搏电极脱位率有所增高 ,约占同期起搏器总数量的 2 %。这一现象应给予充分重视 ,并采取相应措施减少和预防其发生     

Risk Factors for Implantable Defibrillator Lead Fracture in a Recalled and a Nonrecalled Lead

Risk Factors for ICD Lead Fracture. Introduction: The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis® implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead was “recalled” in October 2007 after 268,000 implants worldwide due to increased failure risk. Manufacturer suggested monitoring has not been shown effective at preventing adverse events. Only limited data exist regarding clinical predictors of Fidelis® lead fracture. We sought to identify risk factors for Fidelis® fracture to guide clinical monitoring and compare its performance with a control lead. Methods: Fractured lead cases were retrospectively reviewed for demographic data, implant technique, radiographic appearance and clinical presentation was analyzed. Lead survival was compared using Kaplan‐Meir curves. Results: Study patients (n = 1314) experienced 18 Fidelis® and 6 Quattro? lead fractures. Patients with failed Fidelis® leads were younger than those with surviving leads (49.5 vs 64.6 years, P = 0.0066). Fidelis® lead fractures often occurred around the time of physical activity. No other measured demographic or technique related factors were associated with lead fracture. Fidelis® leads had significantly decreased survival compared with Quattro? leads (89.3 vs 98.9% at 30 months). Patients less than 50 years old had significantly decreased lead survival compared with those older than 50 in both Fidelis® (79.6% vs 96.5% at 24 months) and Quattro? (93.4 vs 99.8%, P < 0.001 at 24 months) leads. Conclusions: Patients under age 50, with either Fidelis® or Quattro? ICD leads, are at increased risk of lead fracture compared with patients over 50, particularly around the time of intense physical activity. Aggressive monitoring and advisory programming appears warranted in patients with Fidelis® leads as well as especially in younger patients. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 21, pp. 671‐677, June 2010)     

Low-Energy Transvenous Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation Using a Single Atrial Lead System

Atrial Cardioversion Using a Single Atrial Lead System. Introduction: Clinical studies have shown that electrical conversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) is feasible with transvenous catheter electrodes at low energies. We developed a single atrial lead system that allows atrial pacing, sensing, and defibrillation to improve and facilitate this new therapeutic option. Methods and Results: The lead consists of a tripolar sensing, pacing, and defibrillation system. Two defibrillation coil electrodes are positioned on a stylet-guided lead. A ring electrode located between the two coils serves as the cathode for atrial sensing and pacing. We used this lead to cardiovert patients with acute or chronic AE. The distal coil was positioned in the coronary sinus, and the proximal coil and the ring electrode in the right atrium. R wave synchronized biphasic shocks were delivered between the two coils. Atrial signal detection and pacing were performed using the proximal coil and the ring electrode. Eight patients with acute AF (38 ± 9 min) and eight patients with chronic AF (6.6 ± 5 months) were included. The fluoroscopy time for lead placement was 3.5 ± 4.3 minutes. The atrial defibrillation threshold was 2.0 ± 1.4 J for patients with acute AE and 9.2 ± 5.9 J for patients with chronic AF (P < 0.01). The signal amplitude detected was 1.7 ± 1.1 mV during AF and 4.0 ± 2.9 mV after restoration of sinus rhythm (P < 0.001). Atrial pacing was feasible at a threshold of 4.4 ± 3.3 V (0.5-msec pulse width). Conclusions: Atrial signal detection, atrial pacing, and low-energy atrial defibrillation using this single atrial lead system is feasible in various clinical settings. Tbis system might lead to a simpler, less invasive approach for internal atrial cardioversion.     

起博电极导线脱位的临床探讨

报道6例起博器电极导线脱位，1例为VDD起博器，其余5例均为DDD起博器。共8根电极导线脱位，7根为电极导游动、1根呈微脱位。脱位后，2例再次发生晕厥、3例有明显症状，脱位电极导级均为双极电极导线。与以往电极导线脱位率相比，双极电极导线在临床中应用增多后引起的起博电极脱位率有所增高，约占同期起博器总数量的2%。这一现象应给予充分重视，并采取相应措施减少和预防其发生。     

Protrusion Without Fracture of the Accufix Atrial "J" Lead Retention Wire

Retention Wire Fracture. The Telectronics Accufix atrial "J" lead has been associated with injury and death. These complications have occurred as the result of retention wire fracture, extrusion, und perforation of cardiac or vascular structures. This report describes a patient who was found to have protrusion of the proximal end of a nonfractured retention wire during: fluoroscopic surveillance. The wire extrusion appeared to result from angulation of the lead. The lead was extracted and replaced without adverse consequences. Further prospective analysis will be needed to determine the clinical implications and approach to this complication.     

心房颤动发作时心房电极的置入

目的:探讨心脏起搏器置入术中心房颤动(房颤)发作时置入心房电极的方法和可靠性。方法:对24例具有心脏起搏器安置指征的慢快综合征患者房颤发作时置入心房电极的方法、术中术后心房电极的参数进行分析。结果:所有病例全部成功置入心房电极。4例阵发性心房扑动(房扑)患者经超速刺激转复2例;普罗帕酮转复8例阵发性房颤、房扑患者4例成功,胺碘酮转复14例阵发性房颤患者6例成功,总转复率45%。12例术后复律后程控测得P波振幅、心房电极阻抗、起搏阈值与12例术中复律患者测得的参数差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);10例房颤患者术中测得心房波为(0.8±0.6)mV,明显小于术后复律后程控测得的P波(1.4±0.5)mV(P<0.05),但两者阻抗无明显差别(P>0.05)。结论:心脏起搏器置入术中房颤发作时置入心房电极安全可靠。