植入无导线房室同步起搏器Micra AV患者随访报告及最佳适应证分析

目的 探讨无导线房室同步起搏器M icra A V最佳适应证人群.方法 分析国内首批植入M icra A V患者(n=5)入选标准、随访数据,观察疗效和不良事件.结果 接受治疗患者心脏主导节律为三度房室传导阻滞(n=4)或高度房室传导阻滞(n=1),无窦房结功能异常.以心房机械感知为基础的房室同步起搏比例在所有患者中均...     

无导线起搏器单中心植入及中长期随访分析

目的分析无导线起搏器的临床应用情况及随访结果,探讨其安全性和有效性。 方法纳入2019年12月至2021年5月在浙江绿城心血管病医院心脏中心植入无导线起搏器的患者,记录植入适应证,手术时间,X线曝光时间及曝光量,术中、出院前、术后1、3、6、12个月起搏电学参数（阈值、感知、阻抗）及不良事件,同时观察随访期间氨基末端脑钠肽前体（NT-proBNP）及左心室射血分数（LVEF）的变化。 结果共入选20例患者,年龄（70.56±16．39）岁,其中男8例,手术时间（39.60±12.97）min,X线曝光时间（6.31±3.32）min,X线曝光量（151.30±34.95）mGy。植入时电学参数：阻抗（764±181）Ω、感知（9.0±2.5）mV、阈值（0.53±0.17）V／0.24 ms;围术期发生1例少量心包积液,保守治疗后好转。所有患者均完成12个月随访,随访时间（19.0±7.4）个月,其中4例完成术后24个月随访。随访期间起搏电学参数均稳定,无并发症发生;3例患者起搏比例>40%,LVEF轻度下降,但差异无统计学意义（61.5%对59.7%,P=0.05）,NT-proBNP有升高趋势（335.6 pg/ml对507.5 pg/ml,P<0.05）,其余患者LVEF及NT-proBNP均无明显变化。 结论无导线起搏器可安全、有效地应用于临床,起搏电学参数理想且稳定;心功能指标可考虑作为高比例起搏患者的随访内容之一。     

Micra无导线起搏器和传统起搏器的近期临床疗效比较

目的 比较Micra无导线起搏器和传统单腔起搏器的临床应用效果.方法 回顾性纳入因缓慢心律失常住院并植入Micra无导线起搏器的患者为Micra无导线组,以及同时期植入传统单腔起搏器(植入St.Jude 5056型或Metronic Sigma型)的患者为传统组.观察两组手术时间,X线曝光时间,比较两组患者的起搏器费用...     

无导线起搏器在特殊人群中植入的研究进展

无导线起搏器(LP)被开发并引入临床,以解决传统经静脉起搏器导线与囊袋相关的并发症。在对既往LP可用临床数据的回顾中,笔者发现其植入并不复杂,但因特殊人群自身情况的复杂性,LP的植入存在一定难度。现就近几年LP相关文献进行回顾,并分析LP在特殊人群中植入的可操作性、成功性、安全性以及有效性,为特殊人群植入LP的临床治疗和研究提供指引,具有重要的临床价值。     

无导线起搏器与传统单腔起搏器临床应用的对比分析

目的:通过比较无导线起搏器和传统单腔起搏器在真实世界的临床应用,分析无导线起搏器临床应用的有效性与安全性.方法:回顾性分析2018年8月至2018年12月,就诊北京安贞医院心内科并首次置入无导线起搏器和传统单腔起搏器的患者,收集临床基线资料,置入术中、出院前,术后1,3,6,12个月的起搏电学参数,记录与起搏器相关的再...     

Micra无导线起搏器临床应用的安全性和有效性分析

目的 了解Micra无导线起搏器的安全性和有效性。方法 分析在武汉大学中南医院植入Micra无导线起搏器的11例患者的基线临床资料,随访监测起搏器参数和并发症。结果 11例患者,年龄(80.6±8.6)岁均于局麻下成功植入Micra无导线起搏器。3例为Ⅲ度房室传导阻滞,1例阵发性心房颤动伴长停搏,7例为病窦综合征。2例为双腔起搏器植入后出现囊袋反复感染,移除传统起搏器。随访1～6个月,起搏器参数无明显变化,无并发症发生。结论 Micra无导线起搏器安全有效,适宜于特定人群安置。     

无导线房室同步起搏器 Micra AV植入一例

患者女性,81岁。因“呼吸困难,胸闷20余天”入院。心电图示二度Ⅱ型房室传导阻滞,心室率33次/分;动态心电图示完全性房室传导阻滞。选择经静脉途径安置无导线起搏器Micra AV。术中经左侧股静脉放置临时起搏电极行临时保护性起搏;经右侧股静脉途径放置Micra AV于右室间隔部,测试起搏阈值0.25 V/0.24ms,感知9.8 mV,阻抗1 120Ω。术后起搏功能正常。     

无导线起搏器植入后原囊袋感染静脉残留导线拔除一例

患者男性,57岁.13年前因"二度Ⅱ型房室传导阻滞"植入双腔心脏起搏器,3年前因电池耗竭,更换双腔起搏器.1年前因囊袋破溃、渗液经保守治疗无效,行囊袋清创术+电极离断后包埋术+脉冲发生器取出术,清创术后1个月经静脉植入了无导线起搏器;4个月前囊袋局部伤口再次破溃、渗液,诊断为囊袋感染,给予经上腔途径拔除电极导线,在激光...     

矫正型大动脉转位患者植入无导线起搏器一例

患者男性,50岁,因间断黑矇1个月入院,心电图及动态心电图均提示间断高度-三度房室传导阻滞,超声心动图、心脏CT及心脏MRI均提示矫正型大动脉转位。入院后成功行无导线起搏器植入术,将无导线起搏器植入解剖学左室内,术后各项参数稳定。     

心室无导线起搏器植入部位的初步探讨

目的探讨高位室间隔植入无导线起搏器的可行性和安全性。方法选取本院参与国内首次无导线起搏器临床研究的患者,比较高位室间隔植入无导线起搏器(A组)与低位室间隔植入者(B组)的有关参数。结果共入选15例患者,均顺利植入Micra起搏器。A组8例,B组7例,A组及B组在植入时的起搏阈值[0.38(0.22)mV vs 0.63(1.00)mV]、R波感知[(10.9±4.7) mV vs (7.3±3.0) mV]、电极阻抗[(906.3±162.4)Ωvs (750.0±173.4)Ω]、T波同步导联数[(7.2±2.7) vs (7.1±2.5)]差异均无显著性(P>0.05)。起搏QRS时限A组有缩短的趋势(140.0 ms vs 179.0 ms,P>0.05),A组起搏QTc短于B组(440.0 ms vs 520.0 ms,P<0.05),A组在手术中的透视时间短于B组[12.86(5.36) min vs 18.46(4.41) min,P<0.05]。两组在出院前、随访1个月时的阈值、感知及阻抗差异均无显著性(P>0.05)。结论高位室间隔植入Micra无导线起搏器安全、可行,起搏的心室除极与复极顺序可能优于低位间隔起搏。     

Coronary sinus pacing clinical follow-up

Coronary sinus pacing is a safe and effective means of pacing from the atrium. In 66 patients with an average follow-up of 14 months, there was a 14% failure rate. There were transient problems in 14% which were subsequently corrected. There was a 6% death rate which was not pacemaker related. Successful atrial pacing with thresholds up to 6.0 mA is feasible. Atrial pacing was successful in 18 of 19 patients with varying degrees of atrioventricular block. Our experience with a new electrode has been very satisfactory.     

直接房间隔起搏的临床应用

目的 探讨直接房间隔起搏的方法学.方法 将患者分为电生理检查引导组和直接植入组,前者根据电生理的标测结果进行房间隔起搏导线的植入,后者直接应用可控钢丝或者预塑形钢丝进行房间隔起搏导线的植入,术后3、6、12个月随访,观察导线的阈值、感知和阻抗,以及导线脱位等并发症的发生率.结果 电生理检查组15例患者中完成了13例导线植入,急性期脱位2例,慢性脱位1例,直接植入组14例患者均完成起搏导线植入,无导线脱位等并发症,随访中两组之间导线的阈值、感知、阻抗等参数差异均无统计学意义.结论 永久性房间隔起搏是安全、可行的.直接房间隔起搏也有同样高安全性和高成功率.     

新型主动固定起搏导线的临床应用

目的评估植入新型主动固定起搏导线的可用性和安全性。方法选择本中心植入永久性人工心脏起搏器患者101例,分为新型导线组（n=25）和传统导线组（n=76）,新型导线组患者植入Medtronic3830导线3根,5086MRI导线14根（包括心房、心室导线）,Boston Scientific4471导线15根;传统导线组患者植入心室主动固定导线76根,心房被动固定导线58根,测量植入后各相关起搏参数,手术时间,曝光时间及心室导线过三尖瓣的次数,并常规随访。结果两组导线的阈值[（0．62-4-0．14）V、（0．63-4-017）V]、振幅[（1129±4．28）mV、（12．74±6．08）mV]、阻抗[（76768±132．73）Q、（815．14±182．46）Q]、电流[（077±0．19）mA、（0．85±0．33）mA]、斜率（2．46±1．07、2．844-102）差异均无统计学意义（均P〉005）,两组起搏导线损伤电流[（6,83±1157）mV、（6．61±1187）mV]、植入手术时间[（44．204-4．65）min、（43．42±5．55）min]、曝光时间[（3．24±1．04）min、（3．33±1．05）min]、导线过三尖瓣次数（1．36±0．57、1．34±0．63）差异均无统计学意义（均P〉0．05）。三种新型起搏导线植入时均未发生并发症,4471导线出现1例术后完全脱位。1年时随访两组导线的阈值、振幅、阻抗异均无统计学意义（均P〉0．05o结论新型起搏导线均符合起搏器植入要求,未增加手术时间和曝光时间,植入安全。     

永久希氏束起搏临床应用

目的 探讨永久希氏束起搏(HBP)的安全性和可行性.方法 对17例有常规心脏起搏适应证或长期依赖右心室起搏伴收缩性心力衰竭的患者,采用4.1F螺旋导线进行永久HBP,门诊随访3～l2个月.结果 成功HBP 9例(52.9％),急性期和慢性期的感知、阈值分别为(3.5±1.4) mV、(1.2±0.7)V和(3.4±3.3)mV、(1.7±1.3)V,相互间差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).9例中有2例心力衰竭伴持续性心房颤动、宽QRS波,其中1例依赖右心室流出道起搏半年,HBP后QRS时限由术前的150、200 ms变为120、160 ms,心功能由术前的Ⅲ级(NYHA分级)变为Ⅰ、Ⅱ级.17例中1例术后出现中等量心包积液,未予处理,随访1年心包积液明显减少.结论 永久HBP是安全、可行的,对于有常规心脏起搏适应证并预期心室起搏依赖的慢性收缩性心力衰竭患者,或长期依赖右心室起搏后出现的收缩性心力衰竭患者,永久HBP可能是较佳选择.     

双心室起搏的临床疗效观察

目的　探讨缺血性或扩张型心肌病合并充血性心力衰竭行永久性双心室起搏治疗的临床效果。方法　对 1 0例缺血性或扩张型心肌病合并难治性心力衰竭和左束支阻滞患者 ,常规植入右心室起搏导线的同时植入冠状静脉窦电极导线于左室侧静脉、心大或心中静脉 ,行双心室同步起搏 (其中 2例为四腔起搏 )。通过临床观察、超声心动图测定及 6分钟平地行走评定对心功能的影响。结果　在充血性心力衰竭合并左束支阻滞患者植入冠状静脉窦电极导线行双心室起搏 ,产生较窄 QRS波 ,临床心功能从 ～ 级提高至 ～ 级 ( NYHA) ,同时使二尖瓣返流减少 ,射血分数提高 ,左室舒张末期内径缩小 ,6分钟平地行走距离比术前明显提高。结论　双心室起搏对难治性心力衰竭可能有辅助治疗作用。     

Atrio-ventricular synchronous pacing with a single chamber leadless pacemaker: Programming and trouble shooting for common clinical scenarios

Micra leadless pacemaker has progressed from a single chamber pacemaker that can deliver VVIR pacing to a pacing device that can provide atrio-ventricular (AV) synchrony via a unique pacing algorithm that relies on identifying mechanical atrial contraction. This novel algorithm has its own limitations and intricacies. In this paper, we review this algorithm, suggest steps for troubleshooting and programming these devices and provide clinical examples of Micra AV cases that required changes in programming for adequate tracking of atrial activity.     

Long-term follow-up of pacemakers with an Autocapture pacing system

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and performance of the Autocapture pacing system during a 5-year follow-up period. The study was conducted retrospectively between May 1996 and May 2001. Sixty consecutive patients who had undergone VVI pacemaker implantation using an Autocapture program with leads 1402T (n: 31) and 1452T (n: 29) were included in the study. Intraoperative measurements including a ventricular stimulation threshold test, sensing of intrinsic R wave (mV), and lead impedance (W) were done by a standard pacing system analyzer. Evoked responses (ER, mV) and polarization signals (PS, mV) were measured after the pocket was closed. Pacing thresholds by Autocapture (AC thrd, V) and Vario (Vario thrd, V), battery current (mA), and battery impedance (kW) were also repeated during predischarge and 1, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 40, 50, and 60 months after discharge. According to the ER and PS values an Autocapture algorithm could be activated in 49 patients (88%). The Autocapture algorithm remained active during the follow-up in all of these patients. In patients with inappropriate ER and PS values (11 patients, 12%), pacemakers were programmed to a VVIR pacing mode and Autocapture algorithm was inactivated. ER and PS values did not reach appropriate values to activate the Autocapture algorithm in any of these patients in consecutive follow-ups. Twenty-four-hour Holter monitoring could be conducted in 32 patients (53%). In all recordings, when the loss of capture occurred, it was confirmed that back-up pacing continued. When the first measurements recorded during implantation were compared to approximately the 5th year measurements; ER (9.2 mV vs 9.6 mV), PS signal (1.13 +/- 0.30 mV vs 1.15 +/- 0.72 mV), AC thrd (0.4 V vs 1.2 V), Vario thrd (0.7 V vs 1.3 V), and lead impedance (502 ohm vs 620 ohm) were not changed significantly. Battery impedance increased 1 kOhm between 30-40 months of the implantation. Seven deaths occurred during follow-up. Three patients had fatal myocardial infarction, one died due to a non-cardiac event, and the remaining three died due to progressive heart failure. Conclusion: ER, R wave amplitude, and PS, which are the main parameters for the continuation of Autocapture function, did not change significantly during long-term follow-up. High output back up pacing provided additional safety for sudden rises in threshold. The Autocapture pacing algorithm was found to be effective and reliable during long-term follow-up.