...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology >Intraoperative comparison of a subthreshold test pulse with the standard high-energy shock approach for the measurement of defibrillation lead impedance.
【24h】

Intraoperative comparison of a subthreshold test pulse with the standard high-energy shock approach for the measurement of defibrillation lead impedance.

机译:术中将亚阈值测试脉冲与标准高能电击方法进行的用于除颤导线阻抗测量的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

There are two methods to measure shocking lead impedance: delivery of high-energy shocks that require patient sedation, and the painless measurement of impedance from subthreshold test pulses. The aim of this study was to compare the two methods. METHODS: The study included 131 patients implanted with a standard DR (n = 71) or VR (n = 60) ICD connected to either single-coil (n = 39) or dual-coil (n = 92) defibrillation leads. The noninvasive high-energy impedance test was done using a 17 J shock after induction of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and compared to a 0.4 microJ test pulse used by the ICD for the subthreshold measurements. RESULTS: Defibrillation lead impedance measurements were not significantly different between patients with the same shocking vector configuration. In patients with a single-coil defibrillation lead the impedance was 62 +/- 9 Omega with the high-energy shock and 62 +/- 8 Omega with the subthreshold test pulses (P = 0.13). Patients with a dual-coil configuration recorded average impedances of 40 +/- 5 Omega from both tests (P = 0.44). While there was no difference in values recorded within each lead configuration, there was a significant difference in impedance between the single-coil and the dual-coil patient groups (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between shocking lead impedances measured with the high-energy shock or the subthreshold test pulses. This offers the possibility of noninvasive, low-energy serial measurements of shocking lead impedance at follow-up visits and removing the need for sedation.
机译:有两种测量电击导线阻抗的方法:传递需要患者镇静的高能电击,以及无阈值测试脉冲对阻抗的无痛测量。这项研究的目的是比较两种方法。方法:该研究包括131名植入标准DR(n = 71)或VR(n = 60)ICD的患者,该ICD连接到单线圈(n = 39)或双线圈(n = 92)除颤导线上。在诱发室性快速性心律失常后,使用17 J电击进行无创性高能阻抗测试,并将其与ICD用于阈值下测量的0.4 microJ测试脉冲进行比较。结果:具有相同电击载体配置的患者之间的除颤导线阻抗测量值无显着差异。对于单线圈除颤导线的患者,高能电击的阻抗为62 +/- 9Ω,亚阈值测试脉冲的阻抗为62 +/- 8Ω(P = 0.13)。两种测试中双线圈配置的患者记录的平均阻抗为40 +/- 5Ω(P = 0.44)。虽然每种导线配置中记录的值没有差异,但单线圈和双线圈患者组之间的阻抗存在显着差异(P = 0.001)。结论:用高能冲击或亚阈值测试脉冲测得的冲击引线阻抗之间没有显着差异。这提供了在随访时无创,低能耗地对电击导线阻抗进行连续测量的可能性,从而消除了镇静的需要。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号