无导线起搏器与传统单腔起搏器患者生活质量比较  

Quality of life in patients with leadless pacemaker versus conventional single chamber pacemaker

作　　者：蒋宏亮 刘启明[1] 林秋珍[1] Jiang Hongliang;Liu Qiming;Lin Qiuzhen(Department of Cardiology,The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University,Changsha 410011,China;Department of Cardiology,Haikou People’s Hospital,Haikou 570100,China)

机构地区：[1]中南大学湘雅二医院心内科,长沙410011 [2]海口市人民医院心内科,海口570100

出　　处：《中华心律失常学杂志》2022年第6期561-565,共5页Chinese Journal of Cardiac Arrhythmias

基　　金：国家自然科学基金(81770337);国家重点研发计划(2016YFC1301005)。

摘　　要：目的探讨无导线起搏器与传统单腔起搏器(CSPM)对患者生活质量的影响。方法回顾性分析2019年12月至2020年12月在中南大学湘雅二医院心内科行无导线起搏器或CSPM治疗的患者,记录和比较术前和术后3个月生活质量量表(SF-36)得分(包括生理功能、生理职能、躯体疼痛、一般健康状况、精力、社会功能、情感职能、精神健康)。结果共入选76例患者,无导线起搏器组26例,CSPM组50例,两组均成功植入起搏器。无导线起搏器组中男17例(65.4%,17/26),年龄(69.8±10.5)岁,CSPM组中男27例(54.0%,27/50),年龄(66.3±9.7)岁。两组性别、年龄等基线资料差异无统计学意义。随访3个月,两组SF-36得分均有改善,且无导线起搏器组得分高于CSPM组,尤其在生理职能[75.0(50.0,100.0)对50.0(0,75.0),P=0.002]、社会功能[100.0(87.5,100.0)对75.0(62.5,96.9),P<0.001]、精神健康[76.0(72.0,80.0)对68.0(64.0,75.0),P<0.001]方面差异有统计学意义。结论无导线起搏器与CSPM术后生活质量均有改善,但无导线起搏器比CSPM术后生活质量更好。Objective To evaluate the impact of leadless pacemaker(Micra)or conventional single chamber pacemaker(CSPM)on patients’quality of life.Methods Seventy-six patients who received Micra or CSPM implantation in the Department of Cardiology,The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University from December 2019 to December 2020 were enrolled and followed up for 3 months.Quality of life(SF-36)scores were recorded before and 3 months afterthe operation.Including physical functioning(PF),role-physical(RP),bodily pain(BP),general health(GH),vitality(VT),social functioning(SF),role-emotional(RE),mental health(MH)Results A total of 76 patients,including 26 cases of Micra and 50 cases of CSPM.All the patients underwent successful implantation.There were 17 males(65.4%,17/26)with a mean age of(69.8±10.5)years in the Micra group and 27 males(54.0%,27/50)with a mean age of(66.3±9.7)years in the CSPM group.There were no significant differences in gender,age and underlying diseases between the two groups.There was no statistically significant difference in preoperative SF-36 scores between the Micra group and the CSPM group.After 3 months of follow-up,both groups in SF-36 scores showed improvements,andthe increasedscore in the Micra group was higher than that in the CSPM group,with RP[75.0(50.0,100.0)vs.50.0(0,75.0),P=0.002],SF[100.0(87.5,100.0)vs.75.0(62.5,96.9),P<0.001],and MH[76.0(72.0,80.0)vs.68.0(64.0,75.0),P<0.001]measurements showing statistically significant differences.Conclusion Postoperative quality of life was improved in both Micra and CSPM groups.Micra had better postoperative quality of life than CSPM.

关 键 词：心脏起搏器 人工 无导线起搏器 单腔起搏器 生活质量 

分 类 号：R541.7[医药卫生—心血管疾病]