A Control Study Of Using Permanent Leads And Traditional Temporary Leads For Temporary Cardiac Pacing

Objective To investigate the difference of threshold,lead dislodgement and cost effectiveness of using permanent leads and traditional temporary leads for temporary cardiac pacing(TCP).Methods Thirty-two patients in whom TCP was conducted were divided into research group(n=16)and contrast group(n=16).The research group used permanent leads and an externally placed reusable pacemaker for TCP,while the contrast group used the traditional way.Results The research group used 13 active-fixation permanent pacing leads and 3 passive ones,which showed no lead dislodgement.The contrast group used the traditional pacing leads(BARD0071539,6F type)and 4 lead dislodgement occurred.1 lead regained pacing function when the output voltage increased to 8V while 3 other leads needed replacement.The research group had a longer operating time than the contrast group[(17±5)min vs(12±16)min,P=0.01].The research group had a lower pacing threshold than the contrast group at 24 hours after the TCP[(0.63±0.37)V vs(1.47±0.75)V,P=0.038].The research group needed less time for staying in the CCU than the contrast group[(0.8±0.4)d vs(3.5±1.1)d,P=0.014].The cost for operation in the research group was a little higher than the contrast group.But for the total cost associated with TCP,the research group showed less cost than the contrast group[Y(4561±377)vs.?(7428±533),P=0.032].Conclusions TCP using permanent leads and an externally placed reusable pacemaker is more safer and practical than the traditional method,and also has a better cost effectiveness.