Suppr超能文献

主动固定心房电极:两种电极设计的随机对照比较

Active fixation atrial leads: randomized comparison of two lead designs.

作者信息

Kay G N, Anderson K, Epstein A E, Plumb V J

机构信息

Department of Medicine, University of Alabama, Birmingham 35294.

出版信息

Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1989 Aug;12(8):1355-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1989.tb05049.x.

Abstract

Active fixation leads have reduced the incidence of lead dislodgement in patients with permanent pacemakers. However, theoretic concern that the tissue trauma associated with a myocardial screw-helix may increase the chronic pacing threshold of active compared to passive fixation leads has remained. Whether active fixation leads with a stimulating electrode that is independent of the fixation mechanism are associated with a lower chronic pacing threshold than leads utilizing a screw-helix for both fixation and stimulation is unknown. The present prospective, randomized study compared the acute and chronic atrial pacing and sensing characteristics of two unipolar active fixation leads, one utilizing a screw-helix for both fixation and electrical stimulation, the other with an active porous tip electrode and an electrically inactive helix. Patients were randomized to receive either a Medtronic 6957J lead with an electrically active myocardial screw-helix or a Cordis 329-101P lead with an inactive helix and a porous tip electrode. The baseline characteristics of the groups were comparable. At implantation, the 329-101P lead had a lower mean voltage threshold than the 6957J lead (0.61 +/- 0.16 V vs 1.05 +/- 0.34 V, P = 0.0004). There were no significant differences in atrial electrogram amplitude, slew rate, or lead impedance between the groups. At 6 weeks follow-up, there were no differences in the mean threshold voltage (1.85 +/- 0.36 vs 1.93 +/- 0.69 V), impedance (528 +/- 81 vs 530 +/- 118 ohms), or atrial electrogram amplitude (2.63 +/- 0.50 vs 2.42 +/- 0.95 mV) between the two leads. At long-term follow-up (mean 16.2 +/- 2.8 months, range 13.1-20.0 months) there were no significant differences in voltage threshold (1.65 +/- 0.61 vs 1.97 +/- 0.64 V), impedance (565.5 +/- 81.6 vs 617.7 +/- 146.7 ohms), or atrial electrogram amplitude (2.79 +/- 0.75 vs 3.10 +/- 1.53 mV). Thus, these results suggest that active fixation leads in the atrium with an electrode that is independent of the fixation mechanism do not provide chronic stimulation thresholds or electrogram amplitudes that are superior to those obtained with leads utilizing a myocardial screw-helix as both the active electrode and the fixation device.

摘要

主动固定电极导线降低了永久性起搏器患者电极导线脱位的发生率。然而,与被动固定电极导线相比,心肌螺旋电极相关的组织创伤可能会增加主动固定电极导线的慢性起搏阈值,这一理论担忧依然存在。与利用螺旋电极进行固定和刺激的电极导线相比,具有独立于固定机制的刺激电极的主动固定电极导线是否具有更低的慢性起搏阈值尚不清楚。本前瞻性随机研究比较了两种单极主动固定电极导线的急性和慢性心房起搏及感知特性,一种利用螺旋电极进行固定和电刺激,另一种带有主动多孔尖端电极和无电活性的螺旋电极。患者被随机分配接受美敦力6957J电极导线(带有电活性心肌螺旋电极)或科迪斯329 - 101P电极导线(带有无活性螺旋电极和多孔尖端电极)。两组的基线特征具有可比性。植入时,329 - 101P电极导线的平均电压阈值低于6957J电极导线(0.61±0.16V对1.05±0.34V,P = 0.0004)。两组之间在心房电图幅度、上升速率或电极导线阻抗方面无显著差异。在6周随访时,两种电极导线在平均阈值电压(1.85±0.36对1.93±0.69V)、阻抗(528±81对530±118欧姆)或心房电图幅度(2.63±0.50对2.42±0.95mV)方面无差异。在长期随访(平均16.2±2.8个月,范围13.1 - 20.0个月)时,在电压阈值(1.65±0.61对1.97±0.64V)、阻抗(565.5±81.6对617.7±146.7欧姆)或心房电图幅度(2.79±0.75对3.10±1.53mV)方面无显著差异。因此,这些结果表明,心房主动固定电极导线中具有独立于固定机制的电极,其慢性刺激阈值或电图幅度并不优于利用心肌螺旋电极作为主动电极和固定装置的电极导线所获得的结果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验