Willems Stephan, Klemm Hanno, Rostock Thomas, Brandstrup Benedikt, Ventura Rodolfo, Steven Daniel, Risius Tim, Lutomsky Boris, Meinertz Thomas
Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, D-20246 Hamburg, Germany.
Eur Heart J. 2006 Dec;27(23):2871-8. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehl093. Epub 2006 Jun 16.
To investigate the effectiveness of additional substrate modification (SM) by left atrial (LA) linear lesions as compared with pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) in a prospective randomized study. Percutaneous PVI has evolved as an accepted treatment for paroxysmal AF but seemed to be less effective in patients with persistent AF. The benefit of PVI alone and additional linear lesions has not been validated in a randomized study so far.
Sixty-two patients with persistent AF (median duration 7, range 1-18 months) were randomly assigned to either PVI alone (n = 30) or additional SM (n =32) consisting of a roof line connecting both left superior and right superior PV and LA isthmus ablation between left inferior PV and mitral annulus. Procedures including SM were performed using a three-dimensional mapping system (EnSite NavX, St Jude Medical, St Paul, MN, USA). Anti-arrhythmic drugs were discontinued within 8 weeks after ablation in both groups. Follow-up included daily trans-telephonic ECG transmitted irrespective of the patient's symptoms. PVI was successful in 98% of all targeted veins in both groups. Additional SM did not increase fluoroscopy time (72.1+/-18.7 vs. 72.9+/-17.3 min, P=0.92) because of the use of three-dimensional navigation in the PVI+SM group. AF recurrences within the first 4 weeks following ablation were more common after PVI alone (77%) than additional SM (44%, P=0.002). After a follow-up time of 487 (429-570) days, only 20% of patients undergoing stand alone PVI remained in sinus rhythm when compared with 69% following PVI combined with SM (P=0.0001). Two patients assigned to PVI+SM experienced procedure-related complications (cardiac tamponade and minor stroke) which resolved without sequelae.
PVI alone is insufficient in the treatment of persistent AF. However, additional left linear lesions increase the success rate significantly. Early AF-relapses are associated with a negative outcome after PVI alone but not following additional SM.
在一项前瞻性随机研究中,比较左心房(LA)线性损伤附加基质改良(SM)与单独肺静脉隔离(PVI)治疗持续性心房颤动(AF)患者的有效性。经皮肺静脉隔离已成为阵发性房颤的一种公认治疗方法,但在持续性房颤患者中似乎效果较差。迄今为止,单独肺静脉隔离和附加线性损伤的益处尚未在随机研究中得到验证。
62例持续性房颤患者(中位病程7个月,范围1 - 18个月)被随机分为单独肺静脉隔离组(n = 30)或附加基质改良组(n = 32),附加基质改良包括连接左上和右上肺静脉的房顶线以及左下肺静脉与二尖瓣环之间的左心房峡部消融。包括基质改良的手术使用三维标测系统(EnSite NavX,美国明尼苏达州圣保罗市圣犹达医疗公司)进行。两组患者在消融后8周内停用抗心律失常药物。随访包括无论患者症状如何,每日通过电话传输心电图。两组中所有目标静脉的肺静脉隔离成功率均为98%。由于肺静脉隔离+基质改良组使用了三维导航,附加基质改良并未增加透视时间(72.1±18.7对72.9±17.3分钟,P = 0.92)。消融后前4周内房颤复发在单独肺静脉隔离组(77%)比附加基质改良组(44%,P = 0.002)更常见。随访487(429 - 570)天后,单独接受肺静脉隔离的患者仅有20%维持窦性心律,而肺静脉隔离联合基质改良组为69%(P = 0.0001)。分配到肺静脉隔离+基质改良组的2例患者发生了与手术相关的并发症(心脏压塞和轻度卒中),但均无后遗症而缓解。
单独肺静脉隔离治疗持续性房颤不足。然而,附加左心房线性损伤可显著提高成功率。早期房颤复发与单独肺静脉隔离后的不良结局相关,但附加基质改良后则不然。