Kilic Ayhan, Amasyali Basri, Kose Sedat, Aytemir Kudret, Celik Turgay, Kursaklioglu Hurkan, Iyisoy Atila, Ozmen Namik, Yuksel Cagdas, Lenk M Koray, Isik Ersoy
Department of Cardiology, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara. Turkey.
Int Heart J. 2005 Nov;46(6):1023-31. doi: 10.1536/ihj.46.1023.
Radiofrequency catheter ablation or modification of the slow pathway is almost always performed on the right atrial side of the interatrial septum, however, this is not possible in rare cases. We evaluated the clinical and electrophysiological characteristics and long-term follow-up results of patients whose AVNRT could only be ablated from the left posterior atrial septum after repeated unsuccessful attempts on the right atrial side and to observe if they differ from those undergoing ablation with the conventional right-sided approach. Of 587 cases with symptomatic typical AVNRT, 9 patients (1.5%) in whom RF energy delivered to the right atrial septum with the integrated approach failed to ablate or modify the slow pathway were enrolled in the study group (group 1) while the others served as controls (group 2). There was no significant difference between the groups regarding clinical characteristics, dual AV nodal physiology, sinus cycle lengths, AH and HV intervals, procedural complication rates, or recurrence rates in the mean follow-up duration of 34 +/- 11 months. Only tachycardia cycle length (TCL) was significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2, which was mainly due to the difference in AH intervals (P < 0.001 for both). Slow pathway ablation was performed at the posteroseptal aspect of the mitral annulus in 6 and the midseptal aspect in 2 cases. In 1 case, attempts at ablation on the left atrial septum also failed. When the conventional right-sided approach fails to ablate or modify the slow pathway conduction, left-sided ablation can safely and effectively be employed, with success rates and long-term follow-up results comparable to the conventional right-sided approach.
射频导管消融或改良慢径几乎总是在房间隔的右心房侧进行,然而,在极少数情况下这是不可能的。我们评估了在右心房侧反复尝试失败后只能从左后房间隔进行房室结折返性心动过速(AVNRT)消融的患者的临床和电生理特征以及长期随访结果,并观察他们是否与采用传统右侧方法进行消融的患者不同。在587例有症状的典型AVNRT患者中,9例(1.5%)采用综合方法向右心房隔输送射频能量未能消融或改良慢径的患者被纳入研究组(第1组),其余患者作为对照组(第2组)。在平均34±11个月的随访期间,两组在临床特征、双房室结生理、窦性周期长度、AH和HV间期、手术并发症发生率或复发率方面无显著差异。仅第1组的心动过速周期长度(TCL)显著高于第2组,这主要是由于AH间期的差异(两者P均<0.001)。6例在二尖瓣环后间隔处进行慢径消融,2例在中隔处进行。1例患者在左心房隔进行消融尝试也失败了。当传统的右侧方法未能消融或改良慢径传导时,可以安全有效地采用左侧消融,成功率和长期随访结果与传统右侧方法相当。