Suppr超能文献

[经胸后静脉途径植入永久性心脏起搏电极。152例系列研究结果]

[Implantation of permanent cardiac pacing electrodes by the retropectoral transvenous approach. Results of a series of 152 cases].

作者信息

Camous J P, Guarino L, Patouraux G, Baudouy M, Falewee M N, Varenne A, Morand P

出版信息

Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss. 1982 Mar;75(3):333-7.

PMID:6807250
Abstract

When the cephalic vein is unsuitable for the introduction of pacing electrodes, the retropectoral veins near the external border of pectoralis major near its subclavian attachment, approached through the same incision, may provide a suitable alternative. It was not possible to catheterise the cephalic vein in 23,8% of 756 consecutive implantations of endocavitary pacing electrodes. The retropectoral veins were looked for in 172 cases and found and used in 159 cases (92,4%). This percentage of success increased to 97,6% in the latter 83 attempts. These veins are usually very distensible. No complications or accidents were recorded. The only disadvantage was the relatively long dissection time. The stability of the pacing electrodes with this approach was excellent as reoperation was only required in 3% of cases (2 displacements and 3 exit blocks or pericardial migrations). This approach is therefore practicable in the large majority of cases in which the cephalic vein cannot be used. The multiplicity of the retropectoral veins should allow the introduction of two electrodes if sequential atrioventricular pacing were to be chosen. In addition, this approach would be useful when an atrial pacing electrode is to be added to a preexisting ventricular pacing electrode and one hesitates to puncture the subclavian vein because of the risk of damaging the electrode already in place. When direct subclavian puncture is the technique of choice of the operator, the retropectoral veins may be used when the subclavian approach is contraindicated or impossible. In any case, denudation of the retropectoral veins leads to fewer incidents than when the latter approach is used.

摘要

当头静脉不适合插入起搏电极时,通过相同切口进入的胸大肌锁骨附着处外侧边缘附近的胸后静脉可能是一个合适的替代选择。在756例连续的心腔内起搏电极植入中,23.8%的病例无法将导管插入头静脉。在172例病例中寻找胸后静脉,其中159例(92.4%)找到并使用了该静脉。在后83次尝试中,成功率提高到了97.6%。这些静脉通常非常容易扩张。未记录到并发症或意外情况。唯一的缺点是解剖时间相对较长。采用这种方法时,起搏电极的稳定性极佳,仅3%的病例需要再次手术(2例移位和3例出口阻滞或心包移位)。因此,在大多数无法使用头静脉的病例中,这种方法是可行的。如果选择顺序房室起搏,胸后静脉的多样性应允许插入两根电极。此外,当要在已有的心室起搏电极上添加心房起搏电极,且因担心损坏已在位的电极而犹豫是否穿刺锁骨下静脉时,这种方法会很有用。当直接锁骨下穿刺是操作者的首选技术时,在锁骨下途径禁忌或不可能时可使用胸后静脉。无论如何,与使用后一种方法相比,剥脱胸后静脉导致的事件更少。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验