Suppr超能文献

17例患者使用射频电流对房室结进行导管消融。标准导管电极与大尖端导管电极的比较。

Catheter ablation of atrioventricular junction using radiofrequency current in 17 patients. Comparison of standard and large-tip catheter electrodes.

作者信息

Jackman W M, Wang X Z, Friday K J, Fitzgerald D M, Roman C, Moulton K, Margolis P D, Bowman A J, Kuck K H, Naccarelli G V

机构信息

Department of Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City 73190.

出版信息

Circulation. 1991 May;83(5):1562-76. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.83.5.1562.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Two catheter electrode systems were compared for delivering radiofrequency current for ablation of the atrioventricular junction. Seventeen patients with drug-resistant supraventricular tachyarrhythmias were studied.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A 6F or 7F catheter with six or eight standard electrodes (1.25 mm wide, 2.5-mm spacing) was used in the first seven patients (group 1). A 7F quadripolar catheter with a large-tip electrode (4 mm long; surface area, 27 mm2) was used in the final 10 patients (group 2). Both ablation catheters were positioned to record a large atrial potential and a small but sharp His bundle potential from the distal bipolar electrode pair. Radiofrequency current was applied between a large skin electrode on the left posterior chest and either 1) each individual electrode on the standard-tip electrode catheter at 40 V (group 1) or 2) the large-tip electrode at 50-60 V (group 2). Radiofrequency current was limited to 40 V in group patients because of the strong potential for an early impedance rise when higher voltage is applied through standard electrodes. Complete atrioventricular block was achieved in six of seven group 1 patients and all 10 group 2 patients. A junctional escape rhythm followed ablation in five or six group 1 patients (mean cycle length, 1,066 +/- 162 msec) and eight of 10 group 2 patients (mean cycle length, 1,281 +/- 231 msec). Atrioventricular block was produced in a mean of 4.7 +/- 4.6 radiofrequency current applications delivered over a period of 42 +/- 45 minutes using the large-tip electrode (group 2) compared with 46 +/- 22 applications using standard electrodes (15.9 +/- 10.2 applications delivered through the standard-tip electrode) over a period of 147 +/- 59 minutes (group 1). For the application producing atrioventricular block, the large-tip electrode used higher voltage (58 +/- 17 versus 38 +/- 5 V, p less than 0.03) and had lower impedance (103 +/- 22 versus 148 +/- 40 omega, p less than 0.01), resulting in greater power (33.0 +/- 13.0 versus 10.2 +/- 0.6 W, p less than 0.003) and shorter time to block (8 +/- 3 versus 22 +/- 3 seconds, p less than 0.001). Current delivery through standard electrodes was limited by an impedance rise occurring 7 +/- 7 seconds after the onset of one or more radiofrequency current applications at 10 +/- 1 W in six of seven patients. Using the large-tip electrode, an impedance rise occurred in five of 10 patients, but at 25 +/- 10 W and after 21 +/- 9 seconds. Atrioventricular block occurred before the impedance rise in three of these five patients. Complete atrioventricular block persisted in 15 of 16 patients at a mean follow-up of 8.7 months. Atrioventricular conduction returned at 1 month in one group 2 patient and was successfully ablated by a second procedure. Three group 1 patients died 0.5-2 months after ablation, and a fourth patient underwent cardiac transplantation after 10 months. Pathological examination of the heart in two of these patients showed necrosis of the atrioventricular node and origin of the His bundle, without injury to the middle or distal His bundle. All 10 group 2 patients are alive and subjectively improved after ablation.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that catheter-delivered radiofrequency current effectively produces complete atrioventricular block (94%) without requiring general anesthesia or the risk of ventricular dysfunction or cardiac perforation. The large-tip electrode allows a threefold increase in delivered power and markedly decreases the number of pulses and time required to produce atrioventricular block.

摘要

背景

比较了两种导管电极系统用于输送射频电流以消融房室结。研究了17例药物难治性室上性快速心律失常患者。

方法与结果

前7例患者(第1组)使用带有6个或8个标准电极(宽1.25mm,间距2.5mm)的6F或7F导管。后10例患者(第2组)使用带有大尖端电极(长4mm;表面积27mm²)的7F四极导管。将两根消融导管均置于能从远端双极电极对记录到大心房电位和小而尖锐的希氏束电位的位置。射频电流施加于左后胸部的一个大皮肤电极与以下两者之间:1)标准尖端电极导管上的每个单独电极,电压为40V(第1组);2)大尖端电极,电压为50 - 60V(第2组)。由于通过标准电极施加更高电压时早期阻抗上升的可能性很大,第1组患者的射频电流限制在40V。7例第1组患者中的6例以及所有10例第2组患者均实现了完全性房室传导阻滞。第1组5或6例患者(平均周期长度为1066±162毫秒)以及第2组10例患者中的8例(平均周期长度为1281±231毫秒)在消融后出现交界性逸搏心律。使用大尖端电极(第2组)在平均42±45分钟内施加4.7±4.6次射频电流产生房室传导阻滞,相比之下,使用标准电极(通过标准尖端电极施加15.9±10.2次)在平均147±59分钟内施加46±22次射频电流(第1组)。对于产生房室传导阻滞的那次施加,大尖端电极使用的电压更高(58±17V对38±5V,p<0.03)且阻抗更低(103±22Ω对148±40Ω,p<0.01),导致功率更大(33.0±13.0W对10.2±0.6W,p<0.003)且达到阻滞的时间更短(8±3秒对22±3秒,p<0.001)。7例患者中的6例在以10±1W施加一次或多次射频电流后7±7秒出现阻抗上升,限制了通过标准电极输送电流。使用大尖端电极时,10例患者中的5例出现阻抗上升,但在25±10W且在21±9秒之后。这5例患者中有3例在阻抗上升之前出现了房室传导阻滞。16例患者中的15例在平均随访8.7个月时完全性房室传导阻滞持续存在。1例第2组患者在1个月时房室传导恢复,并通过第二次手术成功消融。3例第1组患者在消融后0.5 - 2个月死亡,第4例患者在10个月后接受了心脏移植。其中2例患者心脏的病理检查显示房室结和希氏束起始部坏死,而希氏束中部和远端未受损伤。所有10例第2组患者均存活,且消融后主观感觉有所改善。

结论

我们得出结论,导管输送的射频电流可有效产生完全性房室传导阻滞(94%),无需全身麻醉,也不存在心室功能障碍或心脏穿孔的风险。大尖端电极可使输送功率提高三倍,并显著减少产生房室传导阻滞所需的脉冲数和时间。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验