【摘要】 目的 比较Micra无导线起搏器和传统单腔起搏器的临床应用效果。方法 回顾性纳入因缓慢心律失常住院并植入Micra无导线起搏器的患者为Micra无导线组，以及同时期植入传统单腔起搏器(植入St.Jude 5056型或Metronic Sigma型)的患者为传统组。观察两组手术时间，X线曝光时间，比较两组患者的起搏器费用、住院时长，检测并记录术中和术后各项起搏参数变化，观察术中及术后并发症发生情况等。结果 入选Micra组6例，传统组18例；Micra组手术时间明显短于传统组[(25.50±8.25)min vs(39.0±13.50)min,P<0.05],Micra组X线曝光时间更短[(8.50±2.65)min vs (15.55±5.85)min,P<0.05];Micra组住院费用显著高于传统组，但平均住院日Micra组明显短于传统组(均P<0.05);术后随访1个月，两组的起搏器各项参数均在正常范围内，无统计学差异；Micra组术中和术后均无并发症发生，传统组术中无并发症发生，但术后出现囊袋血肿3例，电极移位1例。结论 Micra无导线起搏器植入相对简单方便，性能可靠。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To compare the clinical effects of Micra leadless pacemaker and traditional single chamber pacemaker. Methods A total of 6 patients implanted with Micra leadleadless pacemaker and 18 patients implanted with traditional single chamber pacemaker(type St.Jude5056 or METRONIC sigma)were enrolled in this study. The operation time, X-ray exposure time, pacemaker cost and hospitalization time of the two groups were observed. The changes of pacing parameters during and after operation were detected and recorded, and the occurrence of intraoperative and postoperative complications was observed. Results The operation time of Micra group was significantly shorter than that of traditional pacing group [(25.50±8.25)min vs(39.0±13.50)min, P<0.05], and the X-ray exposure time of Micra group was shorter[(8.50±2.65)min vs(15.55±5.85)min, P<0.05], The hospitalization cost in Micra group was significantly higher than that in traditional pacing group, but the average postoperative hospitalization time in Micra group was significantly shorter than that in traditional pacing group(all P<0.05); there were no complications in Micra group during and after operation, but there were 3 cases of pocket hematoma and 1 case of electrode displacement in traditional pacing group. After 1 month follow-up, the parameters of pacemaker in the two groups were within the normal range, and there was no statistical difference. Conclusion Micra leadless pacemaker implantation is relatively simple, convenient and reliable.更多还原