Jaïs Pierre, Matsuo Seiichiro, Knecht Sebastien, Weerasooriya Rukshen, Hocini Mélèze, Sacher Fréderic, Wright Matthew, Nault Isabelle, Lellouche Nicolas, Klein George, Clémenty Jacques, Haïssaguerre Michel
Hôpital Cardologique du Haut-Lévêque, Université Bordeaux II, Bordeaux, France.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2009 May;20(5):480-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2008.01373.x. Epub 2008 Dec 22.
Atrial tachycardia (AT) occurring following catheter ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) may be challenging to map and ablate because their mechanism and location is unpredictable and may be multiple in an individual patient.
A prospective cohort of 128 consecutive patients presenting 246 AT in the context of prior AF ablation was investigated. Using activation and entrainment mapping and applying the consensus definition of AT, we evaluated a deductive diagnostic approach based on up to three steps: (1) cycle length regularity, (2) search for macroreentry (i.e., involving >2 separate atrial segments), and (3) if macroreentry excluded, search for focal origin giving a centrifugal activation of the atria. A total of 238/246 (97%) sustained AT (mean cycle length [CL] 284 +/- 87 ms) were successfully mapped (single AT, 51 pts; multiple AT, 77 pts) with a diagnostic time of 10 +/- 8 min per tachycardia. AT were macroreentrant in 109 (46%) and focal in 129 (54%). Of the latter, only 34 focal AT originated from a discrete point site fulfilling the consensus criteria, while a distinct mechanism, localized reentry (AT that was neither macro reentry nor focal), was identified in 95. Localized reentry was defined by (1) electrograms covering >or=75% of the cycle length of AT within an area covering a single or 2 contiguous segments, (2) postpacing interval (PPI) < 30 ms at the site, (3) an identifiable zone of slow conduction, and (4) centrifugal activation of the atrium from the area.
This prospective study demonstrates the feasibility of rapid and accurate identification of all types of postablation AT in a large cohort of patients and describes the dominant role of localized reentry as a novel mechanism of AT.
持续性心房颤动(AF)导管消融术后发生的房性心动过速(AT),其标测和消融可能具有挑战性,因为其机制和位置不可预测,且在个体患者中可能有多种情况。
对128例连续患者进行前瞻性队列研究,这些患者在既往AF消融背景下出现了246次AT。使用激动标测和拖带标测,并应用AT的共识定义,我们评估了一种基于最多三个步骤的演绎诊断方法:(1)心动周期长度的规律性,(2)寻找大折返(即涉及>2个独立心房节段),以及(3)如果排除大折返,则寻找导致心房离心性激动的局灶起源。总共238/246(97%)的持续性AT(平均心动周期长度[CL]284±87毫秒)被成功标测(单源性AT,51例患者;多源性AT,77例患者),每次心动过速的诊断时间为10±8分钟。AT为大折返性的有109例(46%),局灶性的有129例(54%)。在后者中,只有34例局灶性AT起源于符合共识标准的离散点部位,而在95例中发现了一种独特的机制,即局限性折返(既不是大折返也不是局灶性的AT)。局限性折返的定义为:(1)在覆盖单个或2个相邻节段的区域内,局部电图覆盖AT心动周期长度的≥75%,(2)该部位的起搏后间期(PPI)<30毫秒,(3)可识别的缓慢传导区,以及(4)心房从该区域的离心性激动。
这项前瞻性研究证明了在一大群患者中快速准确识别所有类型消融后AT的可行性,并描述了局限性折返作为AT一种新机制的主导作用。