心脏起搏器的临床应用进展

1引言1958年10月15日瑞典斯德哥尔摩市Karolinska医院植入了世界首例全埋藏式人工心脏起搏器,此后的四十多年起搏器技术进展迅速,已成为临床心脏病学的一项重要的治疗与诊断技术。2心脏起搏器植入部位的发展最初植入的起搏器为心室的单腔起搏器,起搏电极导线经周围静脉插入,最后在右心室心尖部肌小梁处被固定,进行心内膜右心室起搏。此后又有心房电极问世,用同样方法植入的心房电极导线在右心耳的梳状肌中固定而进行心房起搏。双腔起搏器是将上述单腔起搏器组合在一起,二支电极导线分别植于右心耳及右心室,并与起搏器的心房、心室孔相连,进…     

3830电极在右心室中位间隔起搏的临床观察

目的用随机对照方法研究Medtronic 3830导线在右心室中位间隔部起搏的安全性及有效性。方法 65例病态窦房结综合征患者随机分为3830电极右心室中位间隔起搏组(n=25)、普通主动电极右心室中位间隔起搏组(n=25)和右心室心尖部(RVA)起搏组(n=15)。观察三组在术中及术后3个月的各项心室导线参数以及起搏前后QRS波宽度。结果随访期间未出现电极导线脱位、起搏或感知不良等并发症。心室电极植入时间及X线曝光时间在三组无统计学差异。术中及3个月后起搏器程控参数三组间无统计学差异。3830间隔组、普通电极间隔组和RVA起搏组术后心室起搏时QRS波时限均较术前明显变宽[(133.2±10.9)ms vs.(88.6±7.0)ms,P<0.05;(137.2±10.9)ms vs.(88.9±8.3)ms,P<0.05;(160.6±11.7)ms vs.(89.4±7.6)ms,P<0.05]。3830间隔组和普通电极间隔组心室起搏时QRS波时限较RVA起搏组明显变窄[(133.2±10.9)ms,(137.2±10.9)ms vs.(160.6±11.7)ms,P<0.05]。结论 3830导线在右心室中位间隔部起搏是安全有效的。中位间隔部起搏对QRS波宽度增加幅度小,提示中位间隔部起搏是较为生理的起搏位点。     

右心房主动固定电极的长期参数变化

目的探讨右心房主动固定电极应用的可行性,观察植入后的长期参数变化.方法60例植入起搏器患者(AAIR4例,DDDR56例),其中男性32例,女性28例,平均年龄66.89±12.19岁.观察60根右心房主动固定电极植入术中及随访1年过程中起搏参数的变化.结果1.全部病人术中成功植入右心房螺旋电极,无手术并发症.植入右心耳电极52例,右心房间隔部3例,右心房侧壁5例.2.参数变化:术中安置主动固定电极的即刻阈值增高明显,随之阈值迅速下降,而术终时,术后48小时,3月、6月、12月阈值无明显改变,从术后48小时开始阻抗即较术中明显下降.各个时间段心房电极感知无明显变化.3.随访中1例病人(1.7%)于术后2小时心房电极脱位,再次手术成功将右心房电极复位.无电极穿孔及心包合并症发生.结论右心房主动固定电极的植入是安全有效的,12个月的随访结果表明起搏参数稳定.     

右心室流入道间隔部和右心室心尖部起搏神经内分泌激素和心功能的变化

目的探讨右心室流入道间隔部(RVIS)和右心室心尖部(RVA)起搏治疗缓慢性心律失常神经内分泌激素和心功能的变化。方法房室全能型起搏器(DDD)治疗患者106例,男86例,女20例,年龄45～86岁,平均(76.4±9.5)岁,随机分为右心室流入道间隔部起搏组(RVIS起搏组)56例,右心室心尖部起搏组(RVA起搏组)50例。两组心房电极均植入右心耳梳状肌内,RVIS起搏组心室电极植入右心室流入道间隔部、RVA起搏组心室电极植入右心室心尖部。分别观察两组在起搏器植入时、起搏3个月和6个月不同时期,血浆肾素活性(PRA)、血管紧张素Ⅱ(AngⅡ)、醛固酮(ALD)、心钠肽(BNP)和去甲肾上腺素(NE)等神经内分泌激素的含量;应用彩色多普勒超声心动图测定:心排血量(CO)、每搏输出量(SV)、射血分数(EF)和左心室舒张末内径(LVDd)。结果 RVA起搏组治疗后,血浆PRA、AngⅡ、ALD、BNP和NE含量增加,而RVIS起搏组则明显下降;RVIS起搏组心功能改善明显:CO、SV和EF值明显增加,LVDd值缩小,RVA起搏组SV、EF值下降,LVDd增加,CO虽然有所增加,但不如RVIS起搏组明显,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 RVIS起搏优于RVA起搏,可明显改善心功能,纠正神经内分泌激素失调,值得临床推广。     

1例主动固定电极右室间隔部起搏器置入术患者的护理

右室间隔部起搏器置入术是应用主动固定电极导线行心脏特殊部位起搏。安装双腔起搏器的患者行右室流出道间隔部起搏,将心室起搏螺旋电极先后定位于右室心尖部及右室流出道间隔部并测试起搏参数,而在间隔部起搏可以获得接近正常生理的心室激动顺序,有效地避免了起搏对血流动力学和心功能的不良影响,其较心尖部起搏能明显改善心脏动力学指标,室间隔部起搏有利于左右心室协调运动但需借助主动固定电极导线,广西主动固定电极起搏器置入术的病例较少,我科于2007年8月重置入1例主动固定电极右室间隔部起搏器术,经系统的治疗和护理,患者已出院,现报…     

右心室间隔部起搏对心动过缓患者的疗效观察

目的:观察并比较VVI单腔起搏器植入右心室间隔部和右心室心尖部对心动过缓患者术后心脏电机械同步性及血清脑钠肽的影响。方法:心房颤动伴房室传导阻滞及心动过缓需植入VVI单腔起搏器患者23例,右心室间隔部起搏患者11例为治疗组,同时行右心室心尖部起搏患者12例为对照组,观察并比较2组手术时间、起搏参数、QRS波宽度,和起搏器植入术前、后血清脑钠肽水平的变化。结果:2组手术时间、QRS波宽度比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);起搏阈值、感知阈值、电极阻抗比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);随访6个月时对照组较治疗组血清脑钠肽水平增加(P<0.05)。结论:与传统植入部位右心室心尖部起搏相比,右心室间隔部起搏更接近生理情况,能更好地维持患者的心脏电机械同步性,对血流动力学影响更小。     

心房螺旋电极导线与翼状电极导线起搏阈值随访分析

目的对比安置双腔起搏器患者植入右心房螺旋电极与翼状电极导线的起搏阈值。方法 60例安置永久性人工心脏起搏器的患者,其中右心房植入Medtronic 5076-52螺旋电极导线30例(螺旋电极组),同期植入Medtronic IMK 49JB-53心房翼状电极导线30例(翼状电极组),分别于植入时采用Medtronic5318测试仪测试心房导线起搏阈值,电流,阻抗,P波振幅及植入后1周、1个月、3个月、6个月、12个月测试心房导线起搏阈值。结果术后1周两组阈值均较植入时明显升高(P<0.05),翼状电极导线组升高更明显(P<0.01),但两组间阈值差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后1个月阈值最高,3个月后逐渐下降稳定,两组阈值在随访期内差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。随访期内两组均无电极导线断裂、脱位、心包填塞、心肌穿孔、胸痛等并发症发生。结论应用螺旋电极固定于右心房行永久起搏安全可行。     

右心室流出道高位间隔部起搏的应用及护理

目的 探讨主动固定电极行右心室流出道高位间隔部起搏的可行性及护理对策.方法 40例需起搏器植入的患者,采用VVI起搏模式,将其随机分为右心室流出道高位间隔部起搏组（RVOTHS组）和右心室心尖部起搏组（RVA组）各20例,观察两组在术中及术后的各项参数以及护理对策.结果 两组患者均顺利完成手术,两组各1例术后发生电极脱位.全部手术无严重并发症出现.RVOTHS组手术曝光时间明显延长,两组比较差异有统计学意义（t=4.036,P＜0.01）.术中两组患者心室的起搏阈值、感知阈值和电极阻抗比较差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）,RVOTHS组起搏心电图QRS波宽度较RVA组变窄,但差异无统计学意义（t=1.613,P＞0.05）.结论 右心室流出道高位间隔部起搏是安全和可行的,术后护理重视心电监测及个性化护理,可使并发症的发生率大大降低.     

1例主动固定电极右室间隔部起搏器置入术患者的护理

右室间隔部起搏器置人术是应用主动固定电极导线行心脏特殊部位起搏。安装双腔起搏器的患者行右室流出道间隔部起搏，将心室起搏螺旋电极先后定位于右室心尖部及右室流出道间隔部并测试起搏参数，而在间隔部起搏可以获得接近正常生理的心室激动顺序，有效地避免了起搏对血流动力学和心功能的不良影响，     

主动电极导线植入在患儿右室间隔部起搏中的应用及护理

目的 探讨主动电极导线的植入在患儿右室间隔部起搏中的应用方法及护理经验.方法 对20例Ⅲ度房室传导阻滞患儿采用Medtronic起搏器植入心室主动电极导线,并做好术前准备,术后严密观察病情,及时发现和处理并发症等护理.结果 主动电极导线成功植入右室间隔18例;另2例电极定位间隔部失败,改行常规心尖部起博.6例出现并发症...     

Implantation of a biventricular pacing system in a patient with a coronary sinus not communicating with the right atrium

Intubation of the coronary sinus failed during implantation of a biventricular pacing system. An angiogram of the left coronary artery showed in the venous phase a coronary sinus not communicating with the right atrium. The coronary sinus was draining into a persistent left superior vena cava communicating with the left subclavian vein. The coronary sinus lead was successfully implanted through the persistent left superior vena cava, whereas the atrial and ventricular leads were implanted through the right superior vena cava in a conventional way.     

The Use of Active Fixation Electrodes for Permanent Endocardial Pacing Via a Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava

Two patients underwent permanent endocardial pacing for complete atrioventricular block. In each case a persistent left superior vena cava was either suspected or known to be present. An active fixation electrode was passed down the left superior vena cava and the tip positioned in the apex of the right ventricle. Stable ventricular pacing was achieved for the follow-up period of approximately six months. With the availability of such active fixation electrodes the presence of a persistent left superior vena cava no longer mandates insertion of an endocardial electrode via the right superior vena cava. when present, or implantation of an epicardial pacing system. (PACE, Vol. 5, March-April, 1982)     

His-bundle pacing in a patient with persistent left superior vena cava

The presence of a persistent left superior vena cava was encountered in a 53-year-old woman undergoing a dual-chamber pacemaker implant for sick sinus syndrome. Active fixation leads were used and positioned in the right atrium and right ventricle via the left superior vena cava draining into the coronary sinus. The natural course of the right ventricular lead riding up the lateral atrial wall and curving backward toward the septum as it exits from the coronary sinus os was found to facilitate the positioning of the lead tip close to the His bundle without the use of a specially designed guiding catheter.     

Implantation of Dual Chamber Pacemaker in a Patient with Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava

A 35-year-old patient underwent permanent pacemaker implantation because of symptomatic sinus bradycardia. During the procedure, persistent left superior vena cava was found. The ventricular lead crossed the tricuspid valve only after curving the stylet to form a loop in the right atrium (RA); subsequently, the curved stylet was changed to a straight one and the lead was positioned and screwed into the right ventricular apex. The atrial lead positioning was possible when the stylet was slightly curved and the lead could reach the anterior wall of the RA. At 18 months, a follow-up revealed normal pacemaker function and stable lead position.     

The Importance of the Left Atrioventricular Interval during Atrioventricular Sequential Pacing

During atrioventricular (AV) sequential pacing from the right heart, the interval between the left atrium and ventricle may vary from the programmed AV interval depending on the position of the atrial and ventricular electrodes and interatrial and interventricular conduction. The aim of this study was to determine the hemodynamic effects of altering the left AV interval while keeping the programmed AV interval constant. Four male and 17 female patients, aged 49 ± 15 years were studied. The left AV interval was measured by a catheter in the coronary sinus. Stroke volume and mitral flow were measured by simultaneous echo Doppler during AV sequential pacing from the right atrial appendage and right ventricular apex at programmed AV intervals of 100. 60, and 6 ms. The atrial catheter was then positioned on the atrial septum and the measurements repeated. With the atrial catheter in the right atrial appendage, interatrial activation time (118 ± 20 ms) was similar to interventricular activation time (125 ± 21 ms) and the left AV interval was almost identical to the programmed right AV interval. There was a significant correlation between interatrial and interventricular activation times (r = 0.8; P < 0.001). Positioning the atrial electrode on the septum decreased interatrial activation time by 39 ± 12 ms and increased the left AV interval by a similar amount. At a programmed AV interval of 60 ms, the left AV interval increased from 67 ± 15 ms to 105 ± 17 ms after the atrial catheter was repositioned from the appendage to the septum (P < 0.001). Compared to pacing from the right atrial appendage, atrial septal pacing increased mitral A wave velocity integral (2.8 ± 1.4 vs 4.4 ±1.7 cm at a programmed AV interval of 60 ms, P < 0.01), decreased E wave velocity integral (8.1 ± 2.2 vs 6.1 ± 2.4 cm, P < 0.001) but did not alter stroke volume (44.8 ± 10.6 vs 44.9 ± 10.1 mL). In contrast, a 40 ms decrease in the programmed right AV interval from 100 to 60 ms decreased stroke volume from 48.0 ± 10.0 to 44.9 ± 10.2 mL (P < 0.001). There was a strong relationship between interatrial and interventricular conduction so that patients with prolonged interatrial conduction still had equivalent left and right AV intervals during atrioventricular sequential pacing from the right atrial appendage and right ventricular apex. Positioning the atrial electrode on the septum decreases interatrial activation time and increases the left AV interval by about 40 ms but has minimal hemodynamic effect in patients without heart failure.     

Implantation of a biventricular pacing system in a patient with a persistent left superior vena cava

The presence of a persistent left superior vena cava was encountered in a 64-year-old man undergoing implantation of a biventricular pacing system. Leads with active fixation were positioned in the right atrium and right ventricle, through the persistent left superior vena cava and the proximal segment of the coronary sinus. For left ventricular pacing, a standard bipolar lead was positioned directly in the posterior branch of the coronary sinus without the use of special guiding catheters.     

完全型冠状静脉窦隔缺损的超声心动图诊断

目的探讨多普勒超声心动图对完全型冠状静脉窦隔缺损(coronary sinus septal defect,CSSD)的诊断价值.方法以经右心导管检查及外科手术治疗的10例完全型冠状静脉窦隔缺损患者为研究对象,回顾性分析其二维及多普勒超声表现.结果 10例完全性CSSD患者中,超声诊断3例,诊断正确率30%;漏诊7例,占70%.10例完全型冠状静脉窦隔缺损患者中,10例均合并左侧上腔静脉残存,9例合并房间隔缺损,其中4例为房室间隔缺损,5例为房间隔缺损或大型房间隔缺损(近似功能性单心房).10例均合并于复杂型先天性心脏病中,其中7例合并右室双出口、法乐四联症、单心室等紫绀型先心病,3例为部分型房室间隔缺损和功能性单心房患者.结论在复杂型先心病合并左上腔静脉残存或房间隔缺损时应警惕完全型冠状窦隔缺损的存在,以免漏诊.     

Implantation of a Dual Chamber Pacemaker in a Patient with Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava

A patient underwent dual chamber pacemaker implantation by puncture of the left subclavian vein. During the procedure we observed persistence of the left superior vena cava. A "J-shaped" atrial lead was used for ventricular pacing with excellent long-term results. This technique can be a valuable alternative when confronted with the problem of persistent left superior vena cava during pacemaker implantation.     

Transvenous Dual Chamber Pacing via a Unilateral Left Superior Vena Cava

A 74-year-old woman with a unilateral left superior vena cava required dual chamber permanent pacing after a radical cardiac operation for an incomplete form of endocardial cushion defect. An active fixation ventricular lead was used to prevent the instability induced by the strange course of the electrode. For atrial pacing, a ventricular passive fixation lead was used. A transvenous dual chamber pacemaker was successfully inserted via a unilateral left superior vena cava.     

VDD pacing from the middle cardiac vein via a persistent left superior vena cava

We report a combination of unusual features demonstrating a permanent pacemaker implantation of a single-pass VDD lead by way of an anomalous persistent left superior vena cava in the middle cardiac vein. The ventricular stimulation resembled a right bundle branch block QRS morphology and was successfully synchronized by spontaneous atrial activity. This case illustrates an alternative approach of effective VDD pacing and sensing in patients with such a venous anomaly when other standard implantation sites fail.