ObjectiveTo observe the efficacy of dezocine used for atrial fibrillation radiofrequency catheter ablation. MethodsForty-five patients who would undergo radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation were randomly chosen to be our study subjects between April and July 2013. According to the randomized and double-blind principle, they were divided into group D (dezocine group) and group M (morphine group). During routine visits prior to surgery, we recorded the patients' vital signs, pain score and degree of comfort. Before the ablation procedure, 5 mg dezocine or 5 mg morphine was administered intravenously for patients in both the two groups. During the procedure, blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, electrocardiogram, pain scores, and comfort score of the patients were monitored. Furthermore, 2-3 mg dezocine or morphine were administered intravenously if additional analgesia was needed. The time of the procedure was recorded. The patients were followed up and evaluated 2, 6 h and 24 hours after the procedure. ResultsThe procedure time, pain rating index, and visual analogue scores were significantly different between the two groups (P < 0.05). Adverse reaction during or after the procedure was not significantly different (P > 0.05). ConclusionsThe analgesic effect of dezocine is better than morphine for atrial fibrillation radiofrequency catheter ablation. The incidence of adverse reactions such as nausea and vomiting is still high. Dezocine for analgesia in atrial fibrillation ablation can be used as an ideal alternative instead of general anesthesia.
ObjectiveTo explore the efficacy of an innovative approach of follow-up in patients implanted with permanent pacemaker (DDD). MethodsA total of 400 patients who underwent permanent pacemaker (DDD) implantation between June 2011 and June 2013 were included in the present study. Patients were randomly assigned to the innovative and conventional follow-up groups in a 1：1 manner (200 patients in each group). The baseline characteristics were well balanced with no statistically significant differences in the mean age, proportion of male sex, prevalence of hypertension, position of the electrode or the device used between the two groups. At the end of the follow-up, patient outcomes were compared between the two groups. ResultsThe outcomes of patients were better in the innovative follow-up group, with higher degree of satisfaction, better state of health, lower incidence of complications, and less frequent readmission and follow-up visits (all P<0.05). ConclusionThe innovative approach of follow-up considerably improves patient outcomes, and can be useful in future clinical practice.