抗心房颤动起搏器和普通DDD起搏器治疗阵发性心房颤动的疗效对比

目的对比抗心房颤动(简称房颤)起搏器和普通DDD起搏器治疗阵发房颤的疗效。方法阵发房颤患者19例置入Vitatron型或ST.JudeAFX抗房颤起搏器,21例置入普通DDD起搏器。结果两组生活质量评分提高分别达35分(P<0.05)和43分(P<0.05),显效率分别为47.4%和14.3%(P<0.05)、有效率分别为73.7%和23.8%(P<0.05)。900E患者房颤负荷降低58.57%(P<0.05)。结论抗房颤起搏器治疗阵发房颤优于普通DDD起搏器,似可作为传统治疗方法的重要补充。

Contrast of the efficacy in the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation between anti-atrial fibrillation pacemaker and conventional DDD pacemaker

Objective To contrast the efficacy of anti-atrial fibrillation pacemaker in the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation(PAF). Methods 19 cases in therapy group were implanted with Vitatron900E or ST.JudeAFX DR5346 anti-atrial fibrillation pacemaker, compared with 21 PAF patients who were implanted with conventional DDD pacemaker. Results Score of QOL increasing attained to 35(P<0.05)and 43(P<0.05),and significant effective rate was 47.4% and 14.3%(P<0.05),and effective rate was 73.7% and 23.8%(P<0.05)between two groups,respectively. AF burden decreasing attained to 58.57%(P<0.05)in 900E patients. Conclusions Anti-atrial fibrillation pacemaker in the treatment of PAF is superior than conventional DDD pacing and may be important complementation of traditional methods .