论文部分内容阅读
目的比较国产单腔起搏器与进口百多力单腔起搏器的性能和费用。方法选取188例具有起搏器适应证的患者,基于患者自愿选择原则,103例患者安装国产Qinming2312M单腔起搏器(国产组),85例患者安装进口百多力Phillos IIS单腔起搏器(进口组),比较两组起搏器的参数,并发症及住院费用。结果与进口组比较,国产组在植入中和随访中各个参数无显著性差异(P>0.05)。进口组并发症:电极脱位1例,囊袋感染1例,感知异常1例;国产组并发症:电极脱位1例,囊袋感染2例,感知异常1例,国产组与进口组并发症比较,无显著性差异(4/103 vs 3/85;P>0.05),与进口组住院费用比较,国产组显著降低(24 322元vs 31 098元;P<0.01)。结论国产组与进口组性能相当,费用较低。
Objective To compare the performance and cost of domestic single-chamber pacemaker with imported single-chamber pacemaker. Methods A total of 188 patients with pacemaker indications were selected. Based on the principle of voluntary patient selection, 103 Chinese patients were enrolled in the domestic Qinming2312M single-chamber pacemaker (domestic group), and 85 patients were fitted with one hundred paces Phillos IIS single-chamber pacemaker (Import group), comparing the parameters of two groups of pacemaker, complications and hospitalization costs. Results Compared with the imported group, there was no significant difference (P> 0.05) between the parameters of the domestic group during implantation and follow-up. Complications of the imported group: 1 case of electrode dislocation, 1 case of capsular bag infection and 1 case of abnormal sensation. Complications of domestic group: 1 case of electrode dislocation, 2 cases of capsular bag infection, 1 case of abnormal sensation, complication of imported group and imported group , There was no significant difference (4/103 vs 3/85; P> 0.05). Compared with the cost of hospitalization in imported group, the rate of domestic group was significantly lower (24 322 yuan vs 31 098 yuan; P <0.01). Conclusion Domestic group and import group have similar performance and lower cost.