Marrouche Nassir F, Dresing Thomas, Cole Christopher, Bash Dianna, Saad Eduardo, Balaban Krzysztof, Pavia Stephen V, Schweikert Robert, Saliba Walid, Abdul-Karim Ahmed, Pisano Ennio, Fanelli Raffaele, Tchou Patrick, Natale Andrea
Section of Pacing and Electrophysiology, Department of Cardiology, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Aug 7;40(3):464-74. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(02)01972-1.
We conducted this study to compare the efficacy and safety of different catheter ablation technologies and of distal versus ostial pulmonary veins (PV) isolation using the circular mapping technique.
Electrical isolation of the PVs in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a technical challenge.
Two hundred eleven patients (163 men; mean age 53 +/- 11 years) with symptomatic AF were included in this study. In the first 21 patients (group 1), distal isolation (> or = 5 mm from the ostium) was achieved targeting veins triggering AF. In the remaining 190 patients (group 2), ostial isolation of all PVs was performed using 4-mm tip (47 patients), 8-mm tip (21 patients), or cooled-tip (122 patients) ablation catheters.
Distal isolation was able to eliminate premature atrial contractions (PACs) and AF in six of 21 patients (29%) and 10 of 34 PVs. After a mean follow-up time of 6 +/- 4 months, no patients treated with the 8-mm tip catheter experienced recurrence of AF, whereas 21% (10 of 47 patients) and 15% (18 of 122 patients) of the patients ablated with the 4-mm tip and the cooled-tip ablation catheters experienced recurrence of AF after a mean follow-up of 10 +/- 3 and 4 +/- 2 months, respectively. Significant complications including stroke, tamponade, and severe stenosis occurred in 3.5% (8/211) of patients.
Catheter technologies designed to achieve better lesion size appeared to have a positive impact on procedure time, fluoroscopy time, number of lesions, and overall efficacy. Although distal isolation can be achieved with fewer lesions, ostial isolation is required in the majority of patients to eliminate arrhythmogenic PACs and AF.
我们开展这项研究以比较不同导管消融技术以及使用环状标测技术进行肺静脉(PV)远端与开口处隔离的疗效和安全性。
心房颤动(AF)患者的肺静脉电隔离仍然是一项技术挑战。
本研究纳入了211例有症状AF患者(163例男性;平均年龄53±11岁)。在前21例患者(1组)中,针对触发AF的肺静脉实现远端隔离(距开口≥5mm)。在其余190例患者(2组)中,使用4mm尖端(47例患者)、8mm尖端(21例患者)或冷盐水灌注尖端(122例患者)消融导管对所有肺静脉进行开口处隔离。
21例患者中有6例(29%)以及34条肺静脉中的10条实现了远端隔离,且消除了房性早搏(PAC)和AF。平均随访6±4个月后,使用8mm尖端导管治疗的患者无AF复发,而使用4mm尖端和冷盐水灌注尖端消融导管治疗的患者在平均随访10±3个月和4±2个月后,分别有21%(47例患者中的10例)和15%(122例患者中的18例)出现AF复发。3.5%(8/211)的患者发生了包括中风、心包填塞和严重狭窄在内的严重并发症。
旨在实现更好损伤大小的导管技术似乎对手术时间、透视时间、损伤数量和总体疗效有积极影响。尽管通过较少的损伤即可实现远端隔离,但大多数患者仍需要进行开口处隔离以消除致心律失常性PAC和AF。