心电与循环
心電與循環
심전여순배
Journal of Electrocardiology(China)
2014年
2期
135-137
,共3页
起搏器%更换%囊袋
起搏器%更換%囊袋
기박기%경환%낭대
Pacemaker%Replacement%Pocket
目的:探讨不同囊袋处理方法在永久性心脏起搏器更换术中的临床应用。方法96例永久性起搏器更换患者,50例[年龄(72±6.2)岁,起搏器植入时间(8.3±2.6)年]在原囊袋中植入新起搏器(传统囊袋组),46例[年龄(71±10.4)岁,起搏器植入时间(8.7±2.2)年]切除原囊袋,充分止血后在新囊袋中植入新起搏器(新囊袋组)。观察术中两组的起搏囊袋处理时间,术后随访6个月,比较两组血肿发生率,囊袋感染率,并对患者行舒适度评估。结果传统囊袋组囊袋处理时间(2.6±1.6)min,血肿发生率12.0%(6/50),囊袋感染率4.0%(2/50),体温增高发生比例20.0%(10/50),患者满意度72.0%(36/50)。新囊袋组囊袋处理时间(3.4±1.3)min,血肿发生率6.5%(3/50),囊袋感染率0,体温增高发生率8.7%(4/46),患者满意度93.5%(43/46)。血肿发生率、囊袋感染率、体温增高发生率、患者满意度新囊袋组优于传统囊袋组(均P<0.05)。结论起搏器更换术中,常规切除原起搏器囊袋有利于降低血肿及囊袋感染发生率,提高患者满意度。
目的:探討不同囊袋處理方法在永久性心髒起搏器更換術中的臨床應用。方法96例永久性起搏器更換患者,50例[年齡(72±6.2)歲,起搏器植入時間(8.3±2.6)年]在原囊袋中植入新起搏器(傳統囊袋組),46例[年齡(71±10.4)歲,起搏器植入時間(8.7±2.2)年]切除原囊袋,充分止血後在新囊袋中植入新起搏器(新囊袋組)。觀察術中兩組的起搏囊袋處理時間,術後隨訪6箇月,比較兩組血腫髮生率,囊袋感染率,併對患者行舒適度評估。結果傳統囊袋組囊袋處理時間(2.6±1.6)min,血腫髮生率12.0%(6/50),囊袋感染率4.0%(2/50),體溫增高髮生比例20.0%(10/50),患者滿意度72.0%(36/50)。新囊袋組囊袋處理時間(3.4±1.3)min,血腫髮生率6.5%(3/50),囊袋感染率0,體溫增高髮生率8.7%(4/46),患者滿意度93.5%(43/46)。血腫髮生率、囊袋感染率、體溫增高髮生率、患者滿意度新囊袋組優于傳統囊袋組(均P<0.05)。結論起搏器更換術中,常規切除原起搏器囊袋有利于降低血腫及囊袋感染髮生率,提高患者滿意度。
목적:탐토불동낭대처리방법재영구성심장기박기경환술중적림상응용。방법96례영구성기박기경환환자,50례[년령(72±6.2)세,기박기식입시간(8.3±2.6)년]재원낭대중식입신기박기(전통낭대조),46례[년령(71±10.4)세,기박기식입시간(8.7±2.2)년]절제원낭대,충분지혈후재신낭대중식입신기박기(신낭대조)。관찰술중량조적기박낭대처리시간,술후수방6개월,비교량조혈종발생솔,낭대감염솔,병대환자행서괄도평고。결과전통낭대조낭대처리시간(2.6±1.6)min,혈종발생솔12.0%(6/50),낭대감염솔4.0%(2/50),체온증고발생비례20.0%(10/50),환자만의도72.0%(36/50)。신낭대조낭대처리시간(3.4±1.3)min,혈종발생솔6.5%(3/50),낭대감염솔0,체온증고발생솔8.7%(4/46),환자만의도93.5%(43/46)。혈종발생솔、낭대감염솔、체온증고발생솔、환자만의도신낭대조우우전통낭대조(균P<0.05)。결론기박기경환술중,상규절제원기박기낭대유리우강저혈종급낭대감염발생솔,제고환자만의도。
Objective To compare different processing methods of generator pocket in pacemaker replacement. Methods A total of 96 patients underwent pacemaker replacement procedure. Of them, 50 cases (mean age 72±6.2 years, 8.3±2.6years of pacemaker implantation) had a new generator implanted in an old pocket (old pocket group), 46 cases (mean age 72±6.2years, 8.7±2.2years of implantation time) had a new generator implanted in situ after excision of the old pocket with good haemostasis(new pocket group). The processing time for pocket was recorded. The incidence of pocket hematoma and infection and the patient satisfaction during 6 month fol ow-up were evaluated. Results The processing time for pocket was(2.6±1.6)min in old pocket group and (3.4±1.3)min in new pocket group. The incidences of pocket hematoma and infection were 12.0%(6/50) and 4.0%(2/50) in old pocket group, significantly higher than 6.5%(3/50) and 0%(0/50) in new pocket group (P<0.05). Fever occurred more in old pocket group than in new pocket group (20.0%vs 8.7%, P<0.05). The patient satisfaction was significantly higher in new pocket group than in old pocket group (93.5% vs 72.0%, P<0.05). Conclusion During pacemaker replacement procedure, routine excision of old generator pocket may be benefit to reduce pocket hematoma and infection and improve patient satisfaction.