植入式电极导线和临时起搏电极导线行临时心脏起搏的比较

A control study of using permanent leads and traditional temporary leads for temporary cardiac pacing.

目的比较植入式电极导线和临时起搏电极导线行临时心脏起搏(TCP)的效果。方法选择在本院行TCP的患者33例分为研究组(n=19)和对照组(n=14)。研究组采用植入式电极导线外接永久起搏器行TCP;对照组采用传统临时起搏电极导线行TCP。比较两种导线行TCP的阈值、脱位率及总费用。结果研究组10例使用主动电极导线,9例使用翼状被动电极导线,未发生脱位,对照组使用电极导线为(BARD0071539,6F型),脱位4例,均经重新定位。两组TCP 24h后的起搏阈值无明显差异(P>0.05)。研究组TCP术后住CCU病房的时间少于对照组[(0.6±0.4)d vs(3.2±1.3)d](P<0.05),总费用少于对照组[(4 587±398)元vs(7 636±567)元](P<0.05)。结论应用植入式电极导线比临时起搏电极导线行TCP更安全、实用、经济。

Objective To investigate the difference of threshold,lead dislodgement and cost effectiveness of using permanent leads and traditional temporary leads for temporary cardiac pacing （TCP）. Methods Thirty-three pa- tients in whom TCP was conducted were divided into research group（ n =19） and contrast group（n=14）. The re- search group used permanent leads and an externally placed reusable pacemaker for TCP,while the contrast group used the traditional way. Results The research group used 10 active-fixation permanent pacing leads and 9 passive ones,and the contrast group used the traditional pacing leads （BARD0071539,6F type）.No lead dislodgement oc- cured in the research group while 4 lead dislodgements occured in the contrast group which need replacement. The threshold of pacing showed no significant difference between the two groups at 24 hours after the TCP.The research group need less time for staying in the CCU than the contrast group[（0.6±0.9）day vs （3.2±l.3）day]. The cost as sociated with TCP in the research group was similar to the contrast group, but the research group showed less cost if the cost for CCU was included. Conclusions TCP using permanent leads and an externally placed reusable pace maker is more safer and practical than the traditional method,and also has a better cost effectiveness.