CAJ | 학술논문

目的评价右心室流出道间隔部起搏临床应用的有效性及安全性.方法将所入选患者按右心室起搏电极置入部位随机分为被动固定导线心尖部(常规组)和螺旋电极起搏右心室流出道间隔部(非常规组),比较两组患者在术中及术后起搏参数变化及不良反应情况.结果非常规组在术中测试起搏阈值及电流明显高于常规组,但术后1个月差异无统计学意义;术中阻抗及R波振幅二者无明显差异.非常规组起搏时QRS时限较常规组明显要窄,但差异无统计学意义.无患者发生不良反应.结论选择性部位起搏的临床应用安全、有效.
목적 평개우심실류출도간격부기박림상응용적유효성급안전성.방법 장소입선환자안우심실기박전겁치입부위수궤분위피동고정도선심첨부(상규조)화라선전겁기박우심실류출도간격부(비상규조),비교량조환자재술중급술후기박삼수변화급불량반응정황.결과 비상규조재술중측시기박역치급전류명현고우상규조,단술후1개월차이무통계학의의;술중조항급R파진폭이자무명현차이.비상규조기박시QRS시한교상규조명현요착,단차이무통계학의의.무환자발생불량반응.결론 선택성부위기박적림상응용안전、유효.
Objective To compare the safety and efficiency of pacing at right ventricular outflow versus right ventricular apex. Method Patients were divided into two groups: pacing at ventricular cardiac apex (common pacing group, n = 22) and pacing at right ventricular outflow tract(uncommon pacing group, n = 18). Results Impedance and amplitude of R-wave were similar during implantation between the two groups (all P 0. 05). The pacing threshold and electric current were significant higher in uncommon group than those in common pacing group ( all P < 0. 05), however, these differences disappeared at 1 month post pacemaker implantation ( all P 0.05). The mean QRS duration tended to be shorter in uncommon pacing group compared to that in common pacing group (P 0.05 ). There was no pacemaker associated adverse effect in both groups. Conclusion The safety and efficiency of pacing at right ventricular outflow was similar as those of pacing at right ventricular apex.