单腔双感知和单腔单感知频率应答式起搏器临床应用分析(附62例随访报告)

A comparative study of activity-based or respirator-based and dual sensor with ventricular rate adaptive pacing

目的 评价单腔双感知和单腔单感知频率应答式心脏起搏器的临床效应。方法 ６２ 例（ 男２９ 例，女３３例） 病态窦房结综合征患者，年龄２０ ～７０ 岁，起搏器均为频率应答式起搏器，起搏电极１６ 例为单腔双感知（ 气动＋ 体动） ，４２ 例单腔单感知（ 体动式），４ 例为单腔单感知（ 气动式） 。术后半年每月随访一次，半年后三个月随访一次，一年后３ ～６ 个月随访一次，随访内容包括ＨＯＬＴＥＲ。结果 ６２ 例随访平均６ 年，无发生起搏综合征，临床症状明显改善，多数恢复生活自理能力和工作。动态心电图检查起搏功能良好。结论 单腔双感知和单腔单感知频率应答起搏器对比，当活动量或通气量增加时，起搏频率随之增加，其临床效果无明显差异。对于心动过缓合并房颤患者，建议采用单腔单感知频率应答起搏器已能达到目的。

Objective To comparative study of activity-based or respirator-based rate adaptive pacemakers and dual sensor rate response. Methods Sixty-two patients with sick sinus syndrome (29 male, 33 female), age 20～78 years. All pacemakers are rate adaptive pacing. Sixteen patients implanted dual-sensor (Activity+Respitator) rate adaptive pacing; Fourty-two patients implanted activity-based sensor rate adaptive pacing; four patients implanted respirtator-based sensor rate adaptive pacing. Follow-up every one month in the first half year after operation. Later at 6,9,12 months with HOLTER examination.Results Clinical symptoms improved and no pacemaker syndrome occured after the follow-up of sixty-two paients. All HOLTER demonstrated normal pacemeker function.Conclusions No significant difference between activity-based or respirtator-based and dual sensor ventricular rate adaptive pacing in clinical effects.