Pehrsson S K, Bergdahl L, Svane B
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1984 Mar;7(2):195-202. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1984.tb04886.x.
Experience with three transvenous atrial leads, representing different principles, is presented. The types were screw-in (Vitatron Helifix-12), J-lead (Intermedics Lifeline 483-01) and straight-tined (Medtronic 6961). The study comprised insertion of 86 leads (30 Helifix, 40 Lifeline, 16 Medtronic) in 76 patients. Atrial fibrillation occurred during insertion in two patients, and in two others stable electrode positioning in the right atrial appendage was not achieved. Stable position and acceptable intracardiac P-waves were obtained in all the other patients (in 5 after change to another type of lead). Atrial triggered ventricular pacing was used in 34 cases and atrial pacing was used in 38. The P-wave amplitude at insertion was significantly less with Helifix than with Lifeline or Medtronic. The stimulation thresholds (range 0.25-2.5 V) did not differ significantly between the electrodes. Dislodgement of the electrode occurred during the first week in seven cases (5 Lifeline, 2 Helifix), but no late dislodgement occurred. The mean follow-up was 14 months (range 1-31). All three atrial leads offer acceptable function with regard to electro-physiological properties and electrode stability.
本文介绍了三种代表不同原理的经静脉心房电极的使用经验。其类型分别为旋入式（Vitatron Helifix - 12）、J形电极（Intermedics Lifeline 483 - 01）和直翼式（美敦力6961）。该研究纳入了76例患者，共植入86根电极（30根Helifix、40根Lifeline、16根美敦力）。两名患者在植入过程中发生房颤，另有两名患者未在右心耳实现稳定的电极定位。其他所有患者均获得了稳定的位置和可接受的心内P波（5例在更换为另一种类型的电极后获得）。34例采用心房触发心室起搏，38例采用心房起搏。植入时Helifix电极的P波振幅明显低于Lifeline或美敦力电极。各电极间刺激阈值（范围0.25 - 2.5V）无显著差异。7例电极在第一周内发生移位（5根Lifeline、2根Helifix），但无晚期移位发生。平均随访14个月（范围1 - 31个月）。就电生理特性和电极稳定性而言，所有三种心房电极均具有可接受的功能。
