Scanavacca M, Sosa E, Velarde J L, D'Avila A, Hachul D, Reolão B, Sanches O, Silva M, Darrieux F
Instituto do Coração do Hospital das Clínicas, FMUSP.
Arq Bras Cardiol. 1998 Nov;71(5):705-11. doi: 10.1590/s0066-782x1998001100011.
To determine the clinical importance of a bi-directional line of block demonstration in the inferior vena cava-tricuspid annulus isthmus as an end-point for radiofrequency (RF) atrial flutter (FL) ablation.
Forty consecutive patients (51 +/- 11 years) with type I FL were divided in 2 groups: GI (30 patients) anatomic, non-electrophysiologic isthmus ablation technique (interruption and non-induction FL criteria); and GII (10 patients) anatomic with electrophysiologic evaluation of bi-directional isthmus conduction. The isthmus activation was analyzed before and after anatomic RF ablation with a cateter exploring each side of the line of block, depending on the conduction evaluation (anterograde or retrograde).
FL was interrupted and not reinduced in 26/ 30 (86.6%) GI patients and in 10 (100%) GII patients (p = 0.5558). During follow-up FL recurred in 30% of the patients in both groups. In GII, 6 patients with bi-directional block remained assymptomatic, whereas 3 patients with unidirectional block presented recurrence (p = 0.012).
Electrophysiologic demonstration of bidirectional line of block in the isthmus is related to long-term success and should be the criterion for interruption of type I atrial FL RF ablation.
确定在下腔静脉-三尖瓣环峡部进行双向阻滞线标测作为射频(RF)心房扑动(房扑,FL)消融终点的临床重要性。
连续纳入40例I型房扑患者(51±11岁),分为两组:GI组(30例患者)采用解剖学、非电生理学峡部消融技术(阻断及房扑不能诱发标准);GII组(10例患者)采用解剖学方法并对双向峡部传导进行电生理学评估。根据传导评估(顺行或逆行),在解剖学RF消融前后,用导管探查阻滞线两侧来分析峡部激动情况。
GI组26/30例(86.6%)患者房扑被阻断且未再诱发,GII组10例患者(100%)房扑被阻断且未再诱发(p = 0.5558)。随访期间,两组均有30%的患者房扑复发。在GII组中,6例双向阻滞患者无症状,而3例单向阻滞患者出现复发(p = 0.012)。
峡部双向阻滞线的电生理学标测与长期成功相关,应作为I型心房扑动RF消融阻断的标准。