永久心脏起搏电极导线在临时心脏起搏中的实用性和成本效益

目的 探讨应用永久心脏起搏电极导线连接外置可重复使用的永久起搏器进行临时心脏起搏（TCP）的实用性和成本效益。方法 将具有TCP适应证的48位患者分为研究组（n=18）和对照组（n=30）。 研究组应用永久心脏起搏电极导线连接外置可重复使用的永久起搏器进行TCP;对照组进行传统方法TCP。 结果 研究组18例及对照组30例患者均成功地进行了TCP。研究组中有6例采用了主动螺旋起搏电极导线,另外12例应用翼状被动起搏电极导线。 研究组因为可逆性原因所致心动过缓进行TCP的比例（10 /18）高于对照组（8 /30）;而因永久起搏器植入前保护性TCP的比例（3/18）小于对照组（16/30）（P〈0.05）。 研究组患者全部而对照组仅有17%经锁骨下静脉途径进行TCP（P〈0.05）。 研究组TCP应用时间长于对照组[（7.9±6.5）d vs （3.9±2.3）d,P〈0.05]。 研究组因TCP而住CCU病房的时间短于对照组[（0.2±0.5）d vs （2.6±1.2）d,P〈0.05]。 对照组起搏电极导线脱位33次而研究组无脱位。 对照组有1例患者发生心包压塞。 两组与TCP相关的总医疗花费相当（未计算起搏器费用）。 结论 应用永久心脏起搏电极导线连接外置可重复使用的永久起搏器进行TCP,实用性强且不增加医疗经费。     

心室主动电极导线在临时心脏起搏中的应用

目的探讨应用心室主动电极导线连接外置的心脏永久起搏器作为临时起搏的疗效和实用性。方法选取合并心动过缓的拟外科手术患者或预计植入后需观察时间较长,需行临时起搏的患者共53例,分观察组(n=28)和对照组(n=25)。观察组经锁骨下静脉植入心室主动电极导线,头端固定于右心室间隔或心尖部,连接外置的心脏永久起搏器,作为临时心脏起搏;对照组行传统的心脏临时起搏电极植入。结果所有患者均顺利完成临时起搏过程。观察组无电极脱位、血栓形成、感染等并发症发生;对照组有3例电极脱位,1例血栓形成,2例继发肺部感染。结论心室主动电极导线可连接外置的心脏永久起搏器作为临时起搏应用,不增加患者的风险,增加患者的耐受性。     

三维超声评价起搏心电图对右心室流出道起搏电极导线的定位作用

目的 根据三维超声心动图精确定位的起搏心电图特点来评价起搏电极导线位于右心室流出道的位置.方法 40例植入永久性起搏器的患者,植入术中经二维X线影像定位示心室起搏电极导线位于右心室流出道高位间隔部,植入术后行心脏三维超声心动图检查以评价心室电极导线位于右心室流出道的精确位置,并分析起搏电极导线位于不同部位的体表起搏心电图特点.结果 三维超声心动图示起搏电极导线位于高位间隔者23例(57.5%),低位间隔者6例(15.0%),游离壁者11例(27.5%).与游离壁相比,起搏电极导线位于高位间隔时,其下壁导联起搏心电图的R波振幅高[(1.28±0.18)mV vs(0.88±0.18)mV,P＜0.001]、QRS时限短[(132.5±8.3)ms vs(155.3±6.9)ms,P＜0.001]、顿挫少(21.7% vs 90.9%,P＜0.001),胸前导联R/S移行早(大于V4,24%vs 81%,P＜0.05);起搏电极导线位于低位间隔时,其R波振幅也较高[(1.43±0.13)mV vs(0.88±0.18)mV,P＜0.001]、时限也较短[(143.5±4.3)ms vs(155.3±6.9)ms,P=0.004],胸前导联R/S移行早(大于V4,24%vs 81%,P＜0.05).而高位间隔与低位间隔相比,高位间隔QRS波时限更短[(132.5±8.3)ms vs(143.5±4.3)瑚,P=0.003].另外,当起搏电极导线位于后间隔时,Ⅰ导联上的QRS波以正向波为主,位于前间隔时则以负向波为主.结论 三维超声心动图有利于心室起搏电极导线在右心室流出道的精确定位;不同部位起搏的心电图具有不同的特点,这些特点有利于植入术中起搏电极导线在右心室流出道的定位,当起搏电极导线位于后间隔时,其起搏心电图Ⅰ导联为正向波,前间隔时为负向波.     

心脏起搏主动与被动电极导线的拔除难度对比研究

目的 探究心脏起搏主动与被动电极导线在拔除的手术时间和并发症上是否存在差异。方法 选取新疆医科大学第一附属医院从2016年1月至2022年6月进行电极导线拔除的病人共109例，去除除颤电极导线患者8例，未使用工具拔除患者54例，剩余47例，共77根电极导线，其中主动电极导线31根，被动电极导线46根，其中22根使用锚定钢丝拔除，55根使用针眼圈套器拔除。比较两种电极导线之间的手术时间和并发症情况。结果 两组患者的年龄、性别、基础疾病、拔除原因无明显差异。在未进行电极导线使用年限匹配的情况下，主动电极导线的拔除时间明显减少[(46.74±17.95)min vs(56.41±19.61)min,P=0.031],心房主动电极导线的拔除时间较被动电极导线明显缩短[(30.42±10.84)min vs(52.90±19.82)min,P=0.009],在心室电极导线中，两种电极导线的拔除时间无明显差异[(51.50±16.89)min vs(59.36±19.34)min,P=0.137]。主动电极导线的使用年限较短[(4.60±3.64)年vs(10.27±4.26)年，P<0.0...     

实时三维超声心动图与心电图指导床旁临时心脏起搏的对比研究

目的比较实时三维超声心动图(RT-3DE)和心电图指导床旁临时心脏起搏的疗效及安全性。方法 49例患者分为A组(RT-3DE组,23例)和B组(心电图组,26例)。穿刺左侧锁骨下静脉,分别在RT-3DE和心电图指导下将普通起搏电极导线植入右心室进行临时起搏,对比观察两组手术起搏成功率、平均操作时间、起搏阈值及电极导线脱位率。结果 A组和B组的起搏成功率分别为100%和92.3%;平均操作时间为(237±94)s和(358±140)s;起搏阈值为(0.85±0.21)V和(0.98±0.33)V,电极导线脱位率为0%和12.5%。两组在平均操作时间方面差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 RT-3DE与心电图指导床旁临时心脏起搏相比,可明显缩短手术操作时间,具有临床实用价值。     

起搏电极导线脱位

起搏电极导线脱位是起搏器术后常见的并发症。大多为发生在起搏器术后6周内的早期脱位,心房电极和双室同步起搏的冠状窦电极的脱位率较高。诊断电极脱位最简便、有效的检查是心电图和X线片,对疑诊患者,应进行起搏器程控。典型的电极导线脱位表现为起搏阈值升高和/或电极导线阻抗降低,严重脱位尚可引起感知不良。根据起搏器置入的时间、患者临床表现、脱位的电极导线情况以及起搏器功能障碍的程度不同,处理方法亦不同,而积极预防是最好的防治电极导线脱位的方法。     

左室电极导线的随访观察

行心脏再同步治疗(CRT)101例,随访29.5±19.5个月。左室电极导线脱位4例(占4.0%),其中2例轻度脱位,提高起搏阈值可起搏左室;1例脱至冠状窦,另1例为3根电极导线均脱到右房,此2例均重新置入。左室电极导线起搏阈值术后随时间延长呈逐渐增高的趋势,阻抗的变化趋势是逐渐降低。     

左室四极与双极导线在心脏再同步化治疗中对比研究

目的在心脏再同步化治疗(CRT)中应用左室四极与双极导线进行对比研究。方法选取符合CRT适应证的患者16例植入左室四极导线为观察组,25例植入双极导线为对照组,观察有关数据并进行比较。结果两组患者均成功植入CRT。观察组手术时间较对照组显著减少[(106.8±25.6)min vs(125.3±25.7)min,P0.05]。随访6个月观察组左室起搏阈值较对照组显著性降低[(1.20±0.48)V vs(1.91±1.14)V,P0.05]。对照组出现1例膈神经刺激。观察组术后3个月时QRS波时限更短[(152.7±15.8)ms vs(167.3±15.3)ms,P0.05]。结论左室四极较双极导线可显著简化手术流程、缩短手术时间,并改善左室电极起搏阈值。     

超声心动图辅助指导床旁临时起搏器植入术的临床应用

目的 比较在超声心动图指导下行心脏临时起搏与床旁漂浮电极导管心脏临时起搏的临床疗效、安全性及操作时间的差异.方法 90例需进行临时起搏的患者,随机分为两组,A组(52例)在超声心动图指导下将普通起搏电极导线植入右心室进行临时起搏;B组(38例)通过常规球囊漂浮起搏电极导管置入.两组均穿刺左锁骨下静脉.比较两组手术操作时间、起搏成功率、起搏阈值、电极导线脱位率.结果 与B组相比,A组在操作时间,起搏成功率,起搏阈值方面均好于B组(P<0.05).起搏成功率为96.2%和86.8%,起搏阈值为(0.75±0.32)V和(0.95±0.45)V.结论 在超声心动图指导下行心脏临时起搏器植入可明显缩短手术操作时间,安全、有效,具有临床实用价值.     

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。     

Reliability of different temporary myocardial pacing leads

Temporary myocardial pacing leads are routinely used for diagnosis and treatment of postoperative arrhythmias following open-heart surgery. The intention of this study is to compare five different electrodes for reliability during the postoperative period. A standardised technique of implantation was used to place 147 ventricular and 81 atrial wire electrodes in 149 patients. During operation and then daily over the next ten days, the stimulation threshold, P- and R-wave sensing, and impedance were measured with a pacing system analyser to evaluate the reliability of the pacing and sensing function. Five measurements were taken at each time; the mean values were statistically analysed. The number of failures in pacing and sensing and the course of the tested parameters during the postoperative period were compared. As a result, bipolar pacing leads (Osypka TME 64a/66a) proved to be more reliable than unipolar wires (Ethicon HD 12S, Osypka TME 60/60a), particularly in atrial sensing. Also the Medtronic 6400/6500 showed good reliability for the ventricle, so that they can be recommended for VVI-mode pacing. In conclusion, for reliable function during the postoperative course up to 10 days a specially developed bipolar temporary pacemaker electrode can be recommended for both atrial and ventricular or sequential pacing.     

球囊漂浮电极与普通电极床旁心脏临时起搏对比观察

目的对经静脉球囊漂浮电极与普通电极进行心脏临时起搏进行对比观察。方法54例床旁临时心脏起搏中,31例选择普通电极,23例选择球囊漂浮电极。观察两组间置管操作时间、起搏阈值、并发症等。结果两组间均有较高成功率,但球囊漂浮电极组置管时间明显小于普通电极组(2.1±2.3minvs9.3±5.3min,P<0.01),而起搏阈值等指标无明显差异,普通电极组发生并发症2例,1例为心肌穿孔,另1例为RonT诱发室性心动过速。结论与普通电极相比,球囊漂浮电极有操作简便、时间短、并发症少的优点。     

Use of tunnelled active fixation leads allows reliable temporary pacing over prolonged periods

Temporary tunnelled pacing (TTP) is an alternative method of providing temporary pacing in which an active fixation permanent pacing lead is placed fluoroscopically through percutaneous venous access, tunnelled subcutaneously and connected to a resterilized external pulse generator. Our study shows that temporary tunnelled pacing is a safe and reliable method of achieving prolonged temporary pacing. We believe that temporary tunnelled pacing should be considered as an option in all patients who have an indication for prolonged temporary pacing.     

Utility and cost effectiveness of temporary pacing using active fixation leads and an externally placed reusable permanent pacemaker

Active-fixation leads and externally placed permanent pacemakers for temporary pacing may be beneficial because they allow for greater patient mobility and comfort and increased reliability of lead placement. The relative cost of this form of pacing may be prohibitive unless markedly prolonged pacing is required. Twenty patients (63 +/- 15 years of age, 15 men) underwent external "temporary permanent" pacing. Pacing duration and associated complications were recorded. Cost models were then constructed using data from the London Health Sciences Center business unit to compare the cost of traditional temporary pacing and this technique using a Medtronic KSR903 pacemaker and 5,076 leads. Direct costs were calculated based on the 2005 Ontario Health Insurance Plan fee schedule, combined with calculation of labor and materials. Pacing was undertaken for a median of 2 days (range 2 to 83). There were no complications during implantation or pacing or after system removal. Sensing was lost in only 1 instance, which was reprogrammed uneventfully. Cost comparison showed that, although active-fixation lead placement was initially more costly ($798.71 vs $471.91), the added reliability of the permanent system allowed ward telemetry instead of cardiac care unit monitoring. This resulted in cost equivalence after only 18 hours and conferred a cost savings of $456 per 24-hour period thereafter. As a result, a savings of $585.20 is projected for a modeled patient after 48 hours of temporary pacing. In conclusion, temporary pacing using this technique is a reliable and comfortable alternative to traditional temporary pacing and appears to be a cost-effective temporary pacing option after 18 hours.