论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较经食管心房调搏( TEAP)中两种刺激方法急诊转复心房扑动的疗效。方法:将83例AF患者分为连续频率递增刺激组5 6例和猝发起搏组2 7例,前者输出电压2 0～30 v,脉宽1 0 ms,调搏起始频率以高于AF频率1 0次/min,且频率以1 0次/min递增,直到AF中止或调搏频率达到40 0次/min为止;后者输出电压至30～35 v,脉宽1 0 ms,用S1 S1刺激法,频率5 0 0次/min,起搏时间1 s。结果:两组患者有效率分别为75 %和88.9%。结论:采用猝发起搏可能是较好的经食管心房调搏急诊转复心房扑动的有效方法。
Objective: To compare the efficacy of emergency treatment of atrial flutter with two stimulation methods in transesophageal atrial pacing (TEAP). Methods: 83 AF patients were divided into continuous frequency increment stimulation group (56 cases) and burst pacing group (27 cases). The former output voltage was 20-30V and pulse width was 10 ms. The onset frequency of pacing was higher than AF Frequency 10 times / min, and the frequency of 10 times / min increments until AF stop or pacing frequency 40 0 times / min; the latter output voltage to 30 ~ 35 v, pulse width 10 ms, with S1 S1 stimulation method, the frequency of 500 times / min, pacing time 1s. Results: The effective rates of the two groups were 75% and 88.9% respectively. Conclusion: The use of burst pacing may be a good way to transfuse atrial flutter in transesophageal atrial pacing emergency.