Gerstenfeld Edward P, Callans David J, Dixit Sanjay, Zado Erica, Marchlinski Francis E
Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 9 Founders Pavilion, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2003 Jul;14(7):685-90. doi: 10.1046/j.1540-8167.2003.03013.x.
The etiology of atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrences after pulmonary vein (PV) isolation is not well described. The aim of this study was to examine the reason for recurrent AF in patients undergoing a repeat attempt at AF trigger ablation.
Patients with recurrent AF more than 1 month after ablation returned for repeat mapping and ablation. A circular mapping catheter was advanced to each previously targeted PV ostium to determine if the PV was still electrically isolated. Ectopy then was provoked with isoproterenol (up to 20 microg/min), burst pacing, and pacing into AF followed by cardioversion. The location of ectopy triggering atrial premature depolarizations (APDs) or AF was noted. Of 226 patients who underwent ablation of AF triggers, 34 (8 women and 26 men; age 56 +/- 10 years) with recurrent AF returned for a repeat procedure 207 +/- 183 days after the first procedure. There were 84 previously completely isolated PVs in these 34 patients. Thirty-three (39%) of 84 previously isolated PVs were still completely isolated at the time of the second procedure. Fifty-one PVs (61%) had evidence of recovered PV potentials. Fifty triggers of APDs and AF (n = 30) or APDs only (n = 20) were identified in these 34 patients. The majority of triggers [27/50 (54%)] originated from previously targeted PVs. Sixteen triggers [16/50 (32%)] originated from previously nontargeted PVs.
The majority of AF recurrences originate from previously isolated PVs. One third of recurrent triggers originated from PVs that were not targeted during the initial ablation session. Although empiric isolation of all PVs may reduce recurrences, strategies to ensure ostial PV isolation and to prevent recurrent PV conduction after ablation should have the greatest impact on reducing AF recurrence.
肺静脉隔离术后房颤(AF)复发的病因尚未得到充分描述。本研究旨在探讨房颤触发灶消融术后复发房颤患者的复发原因。
消融术后1个月以上房颤复发的患者返回进行再次标测和消融。将环形标测导管推进至每个先前靶向的肺静脉口,以确定肺静脉是否仍处于电隔离状态。然后用异丙肾上腺素(最高20μg/min)、短阵猝发刺激以及起搏诱发房颤后再进行复律来诱发异位搏动。记录触发房性早搏(APD)或房颤的异位搏动位置。在226例行房颤触发灶消融的患者中,34例(8例女性和26例男性;年龄56±10岁)房颤复发患者在首次手术后207±183天返回进行再次手术。这34例患者中有84条先前已完全隔离的肺静脉。在第二次手术时,84条先前隔离的肺静脉中有33条(39%)仍完全隔离。51条肺静脉(61%)有肺静脉电位恢复的证据。在这34例患者中,共识别出50次触发APD和房颤(n = 30)或仅触发APD(n = 20)的触发因素。大多数触发因素[27/50(54%)]起源于先前靶向的肺静脉。16次触发因素[16/50(32%)]起源于先前未靶向的肺静脉。
大多数房颤复发起源于先前隔离的肺静脉。三分之一的复发触发因素起源于初次消融术中未靶向的肺静脉。尽管对所有肺静脉进行经验性隔离可能会减少复发,但确保肺静脉口隔离以及防止消融后肺静脉传导复发的策略对减少房颤复发的影响最大。