3830电极在房间隔起搏中的临床观察  

Clinical application of Medtronic 3830 active-fixation lead in atrial septal pacing

作　　者：易桂斌[1] 陆叶[1] 殷泉忠[1] 张华[1] 崔俊友[1] 

机构地区：[1]东南大学附属江阴医院心内科,江苏江阴214400

出　　处：《中国心脏起搏与心电生理杂志》2014年第6期517-519,共3页Chinese Journal of Cardiac Pacing and Electrophysiology

摘　　要：目的探讨Medtronic 3830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Medtronic 3830主动固定电极,右心耳组22例采用Medtronic 4574或St Jude 1642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要明显短于右心耳组[(94.6±30.8)ms vs(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。Objective To evaluate the feasibility and safety of Medtronic3830 active-fixation leads with atrial septal （AS） pacing. Methods Forty-four patients with DDD pacemaker implantation indication were randomized into two groups. Twenty-two patients underwent AS pacing with Medtronic 3830 active-fixation leads, and the other 22 patients underwent right auricular （RAA）with Medtronic 4574 passive fixation leads or St Jude 1642 passive fixation leads. The difference in the operation time, X ray exposure time, pacing parameters and complications were compared to assess the feasibility of AS pacing, iResults Operation time and expose time were longer in AS group than that in RAA pacing group. There was no significant difference in pacing parameters and complications between two groups. The duration of atrial activation in AS pacing group was little shorter than that in RAA pacing group[ （94.6±30.8） ms vs （135.5 ±20.3 ）ms, P〉0.05 ]. Conclusions It is safe and feasible for AS pacing, but the technique of AS pacing is more complicated than that of RAA pacing.

关 键 词：心血管病学 房间隔起搏 主动电极 美敦力3830 

分 类 号：R318.11[医药卫生—生物医学工程]