论文部分内容阅读
我们自1993年2月～1996年5月,对20例住院病人进行了经颈内静脉穿刺紧急床边起搏与经股静脉插管临时起搏两种方法的比较,认为经颈内静脉插管起搏具有时间短,不需X线透视引导,局部污染少且不需四肢制动等优点,现报道如下。 1 临床资料 1.1 本组20例,男10例,女10例。年龄42～72岁。其中经颈内静脉起搏8例(男4例,女4例)经股静脉起搏12例(男7例,女5例) 1.2 疾病分布Ⅱ°Ⅱ型～Ⅲ°房室传导阻滞13例,Ⅱ°窦房传导阻滞4例,Ⅲ°AVB与室速交替1例,尖端扭转型室速2例。 1.3 导管选择国产二极临时起搏导管(上海医诊厂生产)及美国Cord’s二极临时起搏导管,经颈内选择5F2例,6F6例,经股静脉均为6F。
We from February 1993 to May 1996, 20 cases of inpatient hospitalized by jugular vein puncture emergency bedside pacing and femoral vein catheterization of the two methods of temporary pacing, that by the jugular vein catheterization Tube pacing with a short time, without X-ray guidance, local pollution and less need for limbs brakes, etc., are reported below. 1 Clinical data 1.1 The group of 20 patients, 10 males and 10 females. Age 42 ~ 72 years old. Among them, 8 cases (4 males and 4 females) were subjected to pacing via femoral vein (12 males and 7 females, 5 females) .2 The distribution of disease Ⅱ ° Ⅱ ~ Ⅲ ° atrioventricular block 13 Cases, Ⅱ ° sinoatrial block in 4 cases, Ⅲ ° AVB and ventricular tachycardia in 1 case, torsades de pointes in 2 cases. 1.3 Catheter selection Domestic bipolar temporary pacing catheter (Shanghai Medical Clinic) and the United States Cord’s bipolar temporary pacing catheter, via the neck to choose 5F2 cases, 6F6 cases, the femoral vein are 6F.