Summary： Lead placement for ventricular pacing variably impacts the physiological benefit of the pa- tient. This study evaluated the ventricular lead performance and safety of right ventricular outflow tract septal p...Summary： Lead placement for ventricular pacing variably impacts the physiological benefit of the pa- tient. This study evaluated the ventricular lead performance and safety of right ventricular outflow tract septal pacing in patients with bradyarrhythmia in South China over 60-month follow-up. Totally, 192 patients （108 males, and 84 females, 63-4-21 years old） with bradyarrhythmia were randomly divided into two groups. The right ventricular outflow tract septum （RVOTs） group had lead placement near the sep- tum （n=97）, while the right ventricular apex （RVA） group had a traditional apical placement （n=95）. RV septal lead positioning was achieved with a specialized stylet and confirmed using fluoroscopic projec- tion. All patients were followed up for 60 months. Follow-up assessment included stimulation threshold, R-wave sensing, lead impedance and lead complications. The time of electrode implantation in both the ROVTs and RVA groups were significantly different （4.29±0.61 vs. 2.16±0.22 min; P=0.009）. No dif- ferences were identified in threshold, impedance or R-wave sensing between the two groups at 1 st, 12th, 36th and 60th month during the follow-up period. No occurrence of electrode displacement, increased pacing threshold or inadequate sensing was found. The long-term active fixation ventricular electrode performance in RVOTs group was similar to that in RVA group. RVOTs pacing near the septum using active fixation electrodes may provide stability during long-term follow-up period.展开更多
Current permanent right ventricular and right atrial endocardial pacing leads are implanted utilizing a central lumen stylet. Right ventricular apex pacing initiates an abnormal asynchronous electrical activation patt...Current permanent right ventricular and right atrial endocardial pacing leads are implanted utilizing a central lumen stylet. Right ventricular apex pacing initiates an abnormal asynchronous electrical activation pattern, which results in asynchronous ventricular contraction and relaxation. When pacing from right atrial appendage, the conduction time between two atria will be prolonged, which results in heterogeneity for both depolarization and repolarization. Six patients with Class Ⅰ indication for permanent pacing were implanted with either single chamber or dual chamber pacemaker. The SelectSecure 3830 4-French （Fr） lumenless lead and the SelectSite C304 8.5-Fr steerable catheter-sheath （Medtronic Inc., USA） were used. Pre-selected pacing sites included inter-atrial septum and right ventricular outflow tract, which were defined by ECG and fluoroscopic criteria. All the implanting procedures were successful without complication. Testing results （mean atrial pacing threshold： 0.87 V; mean P wave amplitude： 2.28 mV; mean ventricular pacing threshold： 0.53V; mean R wave amplitude： 8.75 mV） were satisfactory. It is concluded that implantation of a 4-Fr lumenless pacing lead by using a streerable catheter-sheath to achieve inter-atrial septum or right ventricular outflow tract pacing is safe and feasible.展开更多
Objective Right ventricular outflow tract septum has become widely used us an electrode placement site. However, data concerning lead performances and complications for lead repositioning with this technique were scan...Objective Right ventricular outflow tract septum has become widely used us an electrode placement site. However, data concerning lead performances and complications for lead repositioning with this technique were scant. The purpose of this study was to observe long- term lead performances and complications of right ventricular outflow tract septal pacing and provide evidences for choosing an optimal electrode implantation site. Methods Thirty-six patients with septal active electrode implantation and 39 with apical passive electrode implantation were enrolled in this study. Pacing threshold, R-wave sensing, lead impedance, pacing QRS width and pacing-related compli- cations for two groups at implantation and follow-up were compared. Results There were higher pacing threshold and shorter pacing QRS width at implantation in the septal group compared with the apical group. There were no differences between the septal and the apical groups in pacing threshold, R-wave sensitivity, lead impedance and pace-related complication during a follow-up. Conclusions Right ventricular outflow tract septum could be used as a first choice for implantation site because it had long-term stable lead performances and no serious complications compared with the traditional apical site.展开更多
目的评价螺旋电极导线行右室流出道(RVOT)间隔部起搏的可行性。方法连续入组195例具有植入起搏器适应证患者,术前随机分为螺旋主动固定电极导线的RVOT间隔起搏组(A组)和翼状被动固定电极导线的右室心尖部(RVA)起搏组(B组),两组中每例入...目的评价螺旋电极导线行右室流出道(RVOT)间隔部起搏的可行性。方法连续入组195例具有植入起搏器适应证患者,术前随机分为螺旋主动固定电极导线的RVOT间隔起搏组(A组)和翼状被动固定电极导线的右室心尖部(RVA)起搏组(B组),两组中每例入选患者均分别行RVA和RVOT两个部位起搏测试,最后固定于相应的位置。比较两组术中手术时间、起搏参数、起搏QRS波宽度、手术成功率及起搏3个月、1年和2年后电极导线参数的变化。结果 A组99例,B组96例。两组起搏后QRS波宽度明显大于起搏前,B组起搏QRS波时限长于A组(176.46±24.54 ms vs 165.45±22.78 ms,P=0.001)。用于固定RVOT间隔部的曝光时间长于RVA。两组术中及术后并发症相似,R波振幅术后2年内及两组间无差别。术中A组起搏阈值高于B组(0.71±0.30 V vs0.56±0.19 V),术后2年内起搏阈值两组内及组间无差异。术后3个月时阻抗下降,A组的阻抗低于B组并持续整个随访期间。术后2年内超声心动图参数组内及组间无差别。结论采用螺旋主动固定电极导线进行RVOT起搏是安全可行的。展开更多
目的:观察主动电极在右室流出道间隔部起搏安全性和可行性。方法:80例需起搏器植入的患者,随机入组,采用VVI或DDD起搏模式,右室流出道间隔部起搏(RVOTS组)和右心室心尖部起搏(RVA组)各40例,观察两组在术中及术后的各项参数以及起搏心电...目的:观察主动电极在右室流出道间隔部起搏安全性和可行性。方法:80例需起搏器植入的患者,随机入组,采用VVI或DDD起搏模式,右室流出道间隔部起搏(RVOTS组)和右心室心尖部起搏(RVA组)各40例,观察两组在术中及术后的各项参数以及起搏心电图的QRS宽度。结果:两组患者均顺利完成手术,两组各1例术后发生电极脱位。全部手术无严重并发症出现。RVOTS组手术X线曝光时间明显延长(19.8±6.4 vs 10.3±4.8,P<0.01);术中心室的起搏阈值RVOTS组高于RVA组(0.61±0.23 vs 0.48±0.17,P<0.05),但术后1个月及3个月无统计学差异,两组间阻抗、感知在术中及术后无统计学差异,起搏心电图QRS波宽度无统计学差异。结论:主动电极在右室流出道间隔部起搏是安全和可行的。展开更多
目的比较右室流出道(RVOT)和右室心尖部(RVA)起搏对心脏做功和重构的影响。方法 83例缓慢心律失常的患者,其中男40例,女43例,随机分为RVOT间隔部起搏组(RVOT组,n=42)和RVA部起搏组(RVA组,n=41),观察两组QRS波时限、新出现心房颤动(简称...目的比较右室流出道(RVOT)和右室心尖部(RVA)起搏对心脏做功和重构的影响。方法 83例缓慢心律失常的患者,其中男40例,女43例,随机分为RVOT间隔部起搏组(RVOT组,n=42)和RVA部起搏组(RVA组,n=41),观察两组QRS波时限、新出现心房颤动(简称房颤)的情况、心腔内径及左室射血分数(LVEF)的变化。结果随访11.47±1.67个月,两组术后QRS波时限均较术前明显延长(P<0.01),RVA组明显长于RVOT组(P<0.01);两组的左房内径和左室收缩末径均未见明显变化,RVA组1年后左室舒张末径较术前显著增加(53.53±5.72 mm vs 50.03±6.20 mm,P<0.05),两组1年后LVEF均较术前显著降低(RVOT、RVA比较分别为0.57±0.10 vs 0.62±0.11,0.53±0.08 vs 0.63±0.10,P均<0.01);两组新出现房颤例数亦未见差异。结论 RVOT起搏对心室重构的影响要好于RVA起搏。展开更多
目的 比较右室主动固定电极和被动电极导线应用结果，探索右室主动固定电极导线临床应用的可行性。方法 需要安置心脏起搏器患者59例，其中男20例、女39例；年龄在75．6±23．8（54-92）岁。患者为缓慢性心律失常或者严重心力衰竭...目的 比较右室主动固定电极和被动电极导线应用结果，探索右室主动固定电极导线临床应用的可行性。方法 需要安置心脏起搏器患者59例，其中男20例、女39例；年龄在75．6±23．8（54-92）岁。患者为缓慢性心律失常或者严重心力衰竭。30例被动电极组，固定部位为右室心尖部；主动电极组29例，电极固定部位为右室流出道。结果 主动电极组与被动电极组即刻起搏参数比较没有明显的差异（起搏阈值：0．62±0．19V vs 0．78±0．09V，P〉0．05）。在出院后1，3，6个月随访起搏阈值与置入时比较也没有差异。只有1例出现主动电极从右室流出道间隔部脱位。主动电极置入时间和曝光时间较被动电极明显延长（45．03±1．99min vs 13．69±11．37min；17．88±7．23min vs 89．78±3．55min，P均〈0．05）。结论 使用主动固定电极进行右室流出道间隔部起搏是可行和安全的。展开更多
基金supported in part by grants from the Science and Technology Key Foundation of Guangdong Province(No.2010B031600166)the Science and Technology Foundation of Guangdong Province(No.2011B061300072)
文摘Summary： Lead placement for ventricular pacing variably impacts the physiological benefit of the pa- tient. This study evaluated the ventricular lead performance and safety of right ventricular outflow tract septal pacing in patients with bradyarrhythmia in South China over 60-month follow-up. Totally, 192 patients （108 males, and 84 females, 63-4-21 years old） with bradyarrhythmia were randomly divided into two groups. The right ventricular outflow tract septum （RVOTs） group had lead placement near the sep- tum （n=97）, while the right ventricular apex （RVA） group had a traditional apical placement （n=95）. RV septal lead positioning was achieved with a specialized stylet and confirmed using fluoroscopic projec- tion. All patients were followed up for 60 months. Follow-up assessment included stimulation threshold, R-wave sensing, lead impedance and lead complications. The time of electrode implantation in both the ROVTs and RVA groups were significantly different （4.29±0.61 vs. 2.16±0.22 min; P=0.009）. No dif- ferences were identified in threshold, impedance or R-wave sensing between the two groups at 1 st, 12th, 36th and 60th month during the follow-up period. No occurrence of electrode displacement, increased pacing threshold or inadequate sensing was found. The long-term active fixation ventricular electrode performance in RVOTs group was similar to that in RVA group. RVOTs pacing near the septum using active fixation electrodes may provide stability during long-term follow-up period.
基金supported by a grant form a Program of Science and Technology Development of Hubei Province (2004AA304B09).
文摘Current permanent right ventricular and right atrial endocardial pacing leads are implanted utilizing a central lumen stylet. Right ventricular apex pacing initiates an abnormal asynchronous electrical activation pattern, which results in asynchronous ventricular contraction and relaxation. When pacing from right atrial appendage, the conduction time between two atria will be prolonged, which results in heterogeneity for both depolarization and repolarization. Six patients with Class Ⅰ indication for permanent pacing were implanted with either single chamber or dual chamber pacemaker. The SelectSecure 3830 4-French （Fr） lumenless lead and the SelectSite C304 8.5-Fr steerable catheter-sheath （Medtronic Inc., USA） were used. Pre-selected pacing sites included inter-atrial septum and right ventricular outflow tract, which were defined by ECG and fluoroscopic criteria. All the implanting procedures were successful without complication. Testing results （mean atrial pacing threshold： 0.87 V; mean P wave amplitude： 2.28 mV; mean ventricular pacing threshold： 0.53V; mean R wave amplitude： 8.75 mV） were satisfactory. It is concluded that implantation of a 4-Fr lumenless pacing lead by using a streerable catheter-sheath to achieve inter-atrial septum or right ventricular outflow tract pacing is safe and feasible.
文摘Objective Right ventricular outflow tract septum has become widely used us an electrode placement site. However, data concerning lead performances and complications for lead repositioning with this technique were scant. The purpose of this study was to observe long- term lead performances and complications of right ventricular outflow tract septal pacing and provide evidences for choosing an optimal electrode implantation site. Methods Thirty-six patients with septal active electrode implantation and 39 with apical passive electrode implantation were enrolled in this study. Pacing threshold, R-wave sensing, lead impedance, pacing QRS width and pacing-related compli- cations for two groups at implantation and follow-up were compared. Results There were higher pacing threshold and shorter pacing QRS width at implantation in the septal group compared with the apical group. There were no differences between the septal and the apical groups in pacing threshold, R-wave sensitivity, lead impedance and pace-related complication during a follow-up. Conclusions Right ventricular outflow tract septum could be used as a first choice for implantation site because it had long-term stable lead performances and no serious complications compared with the traditional apical site.
文摘目的评价螺旋电极导线行右室流出道(RVOT)间隔部起搏的可行性。方法连续入组195例具有植入起搏器适应证患者,术前随机分为螺旋主动固定电极导线的RVOT间隔起搏组(A组)和翼状被动固定电极导线的右室心尖部(RVA)起搏组(B组),两组中每例入选患者均分别行RVA和RVOT两个部位起搏测试,最后固定于相应的位置。比较两组术中手术时间、起搏参数、起搏QRS波宽度、手术成功率及起搏3个月、1年和2年后电极导线参数的变化。结果 A组99例,B组96例。两组起搏后QRS波宽度明显大于起搏前,B组起搏QRS波时限长于A组(176.46±24.54 ms vs 165.45±22.78 ms,P=0.001)。用于固定RVOT间隔部的曝光时间长于RVA。两组术中及术后并发症相似,R波振幅术后2年内及两组间无差别。术中A组起搏阈值高于B组(0.71±0.30 V vs0.56±0.19 V),术后2年内起搏阈值两组内及组间无差异。术后3个月时阻抗下降,A组的阻抗低于B组并持续整个随访期间。术后2年内超声心动图参数组内及组间无差别。结论采用螺旋主动固定电极导线进行RVOT起搏是安全可行的。
文摘目的:观察主动电极在右室流出道间隔部起搏安全性和可行性。方法:80例需起搏器植入的患者,随机入组,采用VVI或DDD起搏模式,右室流出道间隔部起搏(RVOTS组)和右心室心尖部起搏(RVA组)各40例,观察两组在术中及术后的各项参数以及起搏心电图的QRS宽度。结果:两组患者均顺利完成手术,两组各1例术后发生电极脱位。全部手术无严重并发症出现。RVOTS组手术X线曝光时间明显延长(19.8±6.4 vs 10.3±4.8,P<0.01);术中心室的起搏阈值RVOTS组高于RVA组(0.61±0.23 vs 0.48±0.17,P<0.05),但术后1个月及3个月无统计学差异,两组间阻抗、感知在术中及术后无统计学差异,起搏心电图QRS波宽度无统计学差异。结论:主动电极在右室流出道间隔部起搏是安全和可行的。
文摘目的比较右室流出道(RVOT)和右室心尖部(RVA)起搏对心脏做功和重构的影响。方法 83例缓慢心律失常的患者,其中男40例,女43例,随机分为RVOT间隔部起搏组(RVOT组,n=42)和RVA部起搏组(RVA组,n=41),观察两组QRS波时限、新出现心房颤动(简称房颤)的情况、心腔内径及左室射血分数(LVEF)的变化。结果随访11.47±1.67个月,两组术后QRS波时限均较术前明显延长(P<0.01),RVA组明显长于RVOT组(P<0.01);两组的左房内径和左室收缩末径均未见明显变化,RVA组1年后左室舒张末径较术前显著增加(53.53±5.72 mm vs 50.03±6.20 mm,P<0.05),两组1年后LVEF均较术前显著降低(RVOT、RVA比较分别为0.57±0.10 vs 0.62±0.11,0.53±0.08 vs 0.63±0.10,P均<0.01);两组新出现房颤例数亦未见差异。结论 RVOT起搏对心室重构的影响要好于RVA起搏。
文摘目的 比较右室主动固定电极和被动电极导线应用结果，探索右室主动固定电极导线临床应用的可行性。方法 需要安置心脏起搏器患者59例，其中男20例、女39例；年龄在75．6±23．8（54-92）岁。患者为缓慢性心律失常或者严重心力衰竭。30例被动电极组，固定部位为右室心尖部；主动电极组29例，电极固定部位为右室流出道。结果 主动电极组与被动电极组即刻起搏参数比较没有明显的差异（起搏阈值：0．62±0．19V vs 0．78±0．09V，P〉0．05）。在出院后1，3，6个月随访起搏阈值与置入时比较也没有差异。只有1例出现主动电极从右室流出道间隔部脱位。主动电极置入时间和曝光时间较被动电极明显延长（45．03±1．99min vs 13．69±11．37min；17．88±7．23min vs 89．78±3．55min，P均〈0．05）。结论 使用主动固定电极进行右室流出道间隔部起搏是可行和安全的。
