Yiu P, Tansley P, Pepper J R
Department of Surgery, The Royal Brompton Hospital, Sydney Street, SW3 6NP, London, UK.
Cardiovasc Surg. 2001 Aug;9(4):391-5. doi: 10.1016/s0967-2109(01)00002-3.
The study compared the clinical reliability of using a bipolar epicardial wire (6495, Medtronic) over a unipolar type (FEP15, Ethicon) for post-operative pacing in coronary artery surgery. Atrial and ventricular wires of both types were implanted in 18 patients. Sensitivities and pacing thresholds were tested for 5 consecutive days. Results show that pacing thresholds were better maintained with the bipolar wire in both atria and ventricles. However, sensing failures were frequent in the atrial position (34% vs 9.3% compared with unipolar). By contrast, in the ventricle, no sensing failures occurred (0% vs 17.6% compared with unipolar). Furthermore, sensing magnitude was significantly better (11.13+/-1.32 vs 5.65+/-0.53 mV, P<0.001). We conclude that a single 6495 bipolar wire is effective for temporary ventricular pacing, whilst double unipolar wires remain a useful strategy for securing atrial sensing and pacing.
该研究比较了在冠状动脉手术中使用双极心外膜导线(美敦力6495型)和单极导线(爱惜康FEP15型)进行术后起搏的临床可靠性。两种类型的心房和心室导线均植入18例患者体内。连续5天测试灵敏度和起搏阈值。结果显示,双极导线在心房和心室中均能更好地维持起搏阈值。然而,心房部位的感知失败很常见(与单极导线相比,分别为34%和9.3%)。相比之下,在心室中,未发生感知失败(与单极导线相比,分别为0%和17.6%)。此外,感知幅度明显更好(11.13±1.32 mV对5.65±0.53 mV,P<0.001)。我们得出结论,单根6495双极导线对临时心室起搏有效,而双根单极导线仍是确保心房感知和起搏的有用策略。