论文部分内容阅读
目的比较国产心脏单腔起搏器(Qinming 2312)与两种进口心脏单腔起搏器(Biotronik PhilosⅡS、St.Jude 5056)的临床应用效果。方法连续入组在本院植入心脏单腔起搏器的患者74例,根据起搏器型号分为三组:A组(26例),植入Qinming 2312型;B组(25例),植入Biotronik PhilosⅡS型;C组(23例),植入St.Jude 5056型。检测并记录术后即刻和术后3个月随访时的各项起搏参数变化,采用SF-36量表评价并比较各组患者手术前后的生活质量改善情况,比较各组患者的起搏器费用及医保报销情况。结果与B、C组相比,A组患者手术即刻和术后3个月的各项起搏参数无显著差异(P>0.05),患者的生活质量各项指标评分无显著差异(P>0.05),而A组的费用较低,医保报销比例较高。结论国产心脏单腔起搏器(Qinming 2312)的性能及临床疗效不亚于进口单腔起搏器,具有更高的性价比。
Objective To compare the clinical effects of a Chinese-made single-chamber pacemaker (Qinming 2312) and two imported single-chamber pacemakers (Biotronik Philos Ⅱ S, St. Jude 5056). Methods A total of 74 consecutive patients with cardiac pacemaker implanted in our hospital were divided into three groups according to the pacemaker model: group A (26 cases), implantation of Qinming 2312; group B (25 cases) Biotronik PhilosⅡS type was implanted; Group C (23 cases) was implanted with St.Jude 5056 type. The changes of pacing parameters immediately after operation and 3 months after operation were detected and recorded. The SF-36 scale was used to evaluate the quality of life before and after operation. The pacemaker Expenses and Medicare reimbursement. Results Compared with group B and group C, there was no significant difference in each pacing parameter between group A and group C at 3 months after operation (P> 0.05). There was no significant difference in quality of life between group A and group C (P> 0.05 ), While the cost of group A is lower, the proportion of health insurance reimbursement is higher. Conclusion The performance and clinical efficacy of a domestic cardiac single chamber pacemaker (Qinming 2312) are as good as imported single chamber pacemakers with higher cost performance.