CAJ | 학술논문

目的：比较生理性和非生理性心脏起搏治疗缓慢性心律失常的临床效果。方法选取2013年1月—2014年9月梅州市人民医院收治的80例缓慢性心律失常患者，根据治疗方法不同分为研究组和对照组，每组40例。对照组患者采用非生理性心脏起搏治疗，研究组患者采用生理性心脏起搏治疗。比较两组患者术后症状改善率、并发症发生率、病死率，手术前后左心室射血分数（ LVEF）、左心室舒张末期内径（ LVEDD）、左心房内径（ LAD）。结果研究组患者术后症状改善率（100.0%）高于对照组（80.0%），并发症发生率（2.5%）低于对照组（45.0%）（P<0.05）；两组患者病死率比较，差异无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。术前两组患者LVEF、LVEDD、LAD比较，差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）；术后研究组患者LVEF高于对照组，LVEDD、LAD小于对照组（P<0.05）。结论生理性心脏起搏较非生理性心脏起搏治疗缓慢性心律失常的临床效果好，可降低患者并发症发生率，改善患者心功能。
목적：비교생이성화비생이성심장기박치료완만성심률실상적림상효과。방법선취2013년1월—2014년9월매주시인민의원수치적80례완만성심률실상환자，근거치료방법불동분위연구조화대조조，매조40례。대조조환자채용비생이성심장기박치료，연구조환자채용생이성심장기박치료。비교량조환자술후증상개선솔、병발증발생솔、병사솔，수술전후좌심실사혈분수（ LVEF）、좌심실서장말기내경（ LVEDD）、좌심방내경（ LAD）。결과연구조환자술후증상개선솔（100.0%）고우대조조（80.0%），병발증발생솔（2.5%）저우대조조（45.0%）（P<0.05）；량조환자병사솔비교，차이무통계학의의（ P>0.05）。술전량조환자LVEF、LVEDD、LAD비교，차이균무통계학의의（P>0.05）；술후연구조환자LVEF고우대조조，LVEDD、LAD소우대조조（P<0.05）。결론생이성심장기박교비생이성심장기박치료완만성심률실상적림상효과호，가강저환자병발증발생솔，개선환자심공능。
Objective To compare the clinical effect on bradycardiac arrhythmia between physiological and non -physiological cardiac pacing. Methods A total of 80 patients with bradycardiac arrhythmia were selected in the People's Hospital of Meizhou from January 2013 to September 2014,and they were divided into study group and control group according to the treatment methods,each of 40 cases. Patients of control group were given non-physiological cardiac pacing,while patients of study group were given physiological cardiac pacing. Symptoms improvement rate, incidence of complications, fatality rate, LVEF,LVEDD and LAD before and after treatment were compared between the two groups. Results The symptoms improvement rate of study group was 100. 0%,was statistically significantly higher than that of control group of 80. 0%( P<0. 05 ). The incidence of complications of study group was 2. 5%,was statistically significantly lower than that of control group of 45. 0%(P<0. 05). No statistically significant differences of fatality rate was found between the two groups(P>0. 05). No statistically significant differences of LVEF,LVEDD or LAD was found between the two groups before treatment(P>0. 05);while after treatment,LVEF of study group was statistically significantly higher than that of control group,LVEDD and LAD were statistically significantly shorter than those of control group(P<0. 05). Conclusion Physiological cardiac pacing has a better clinical effect on bradycardiac arrhythmia than non - physiological cardiac pacing, which can reduce the incidence of complications,improve the heart function.