Cardiovascular Medical Center of Jiangsu, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2011 Sep;22(9):973-81. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2011.02051.x. Epub 2011 May 3.
Circumferential pulmonary vein antral isolation (PVAI) and atrial complex fractionated electrograms (CFEs) are both ablative techniques for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). However, data on the comparative value of these 2 ablation strategies are very limited.
We randomized 118 patients with drug-refractory PAF to receive PVAI ablation (n = 60) or CFE ablation (n = 58). For CFE group, spontaneous/induced AF was mapped using validated, automated software to guide ablation until all CFE areas were eliminated. For PVAI group, all 4 pulmonary vein antra were electrically isolated as confirmed by circular mapping catheter. Patients with spontaneous/inducible AF after the initial ablation procedure were crossed over to the other arms. After initial ablation procedure, AF persisted/inducible in 24/59 patients (41%), and 34/58 patients (59%) assigned to PVAI and CFE ablation, respectively (P = 0.05). Then 58 patients underwent PVAI + CFE ablation. After 22.6 ± 6.4 months, PVAI ablation group was more likely than CFE ablation group to achieve control of any AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) off drugs (43/60, 72% vs 33/58, 57%, P = 0.075) and lower recurrence rate of AT (11.9% vs 34.5%, P = 0.004). Patients who received CFE ablation alone (38%) had significantly lower overall success rate to achieve control of AF/AT off drugs compared with patients who received PVAI ablation (77%, P = 0.002) alone or PVAI + CFE ablation (69%, P = 0.008) due to higher recurrence rate of AT (50% vs 6% vs 13%, P < 0.01).
CFE ablation in PAF patients was associated with higher occurrence rate of postprocedure AT compared with PVAI ablation, whereby making it less likely to be a sole ablation strategy for PAF patients.
环形肺静脉前庭隔离(PVAI)和心房复杂碎裂电位(CFE)都是治疗阵发性心房颤动(PAF)的消融技术。然而,关于这两种消融策略的比较价值的数据非常有限。
我们将 118 例药物难治性 PAF 患者随机分为 PVAI 消融组(n=60)或 CFE 消融组(n=58)。对于 CFE 组,使用经过验证的自动软件对自发性/诱发性 AF 进行映射,以指导消融,直到消除所有 CFE 区域。对于 PVAI 组,所有 4 个肺静脉窦均用电隔离确认,采用圆形标测导管。初始消融术后出现自发性/诱发性 AF 的患者交叉到另一个消融组。初始消融术后,24/59 例(41%)和 34/58 例(59%)患者的 AF 持续存在/可诱发,分别分配到 PVAI 和 CFE 消融组(P=0.05)。然后 58 例患者进行了 PVAI+CFE 消融。随访 22.6±6.4 个月后,PVAI 消融组控制任何 AF/房性心动过速(AT)停药的可能性大于 CFE 消融组(43/60,72%比 33/58,57%,P=0.075),AT 复发率更低(11.9%比 34.5%,P=0.004)。单独接受 CFE 消融的患者(38%)的总体成功率明显低于单独接受 PVAI 消融(77%,P=0.002)或 PVAI+CFE 消融(69%,P=0.008)的患者,因为 AT 的复发率较高(50%比 6%比 13%,P<0.01)。
与 PVAI 消融相比,在 PAF 患者中进行 CFE 消融与术后 AT 的发生率较高相关,因此不太可能成为 PAF 患者的单一消融策略。