Langberg J J, Chin M C, Rosenqvist M, Cockrell J, Dullet N, Van Hare G, Griffin J C, Scheinman M M
Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Circulation. 1989 Dec;80(6):1527-35. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.80.6.1527.
Catheter ablation of the atrioventricular junction using direct-current defibrillator discharges requires general anesthesia and may have serious side effects. Sixteen patients with drug-refractory supraventricular tachycardia underwent catheter ablation of the atrioventricular junction using radiofrequency energy. A standard 7F quadripolar electrode catheter was positioned to record the largest unipolar His potential (580 +/- 640 microV) from the distal electrode. An electrocoagulator (Microvasive Bicap 4005) supplied continuous, unmodulated energy at 550 kHz. One to 14 applications of radiofrequency current were delivered between the distal electrode and a large-diameter chest wall electrode. Transient, mild chest discomfort was reported by seven of 16 patients. None had significant arrhythmias or blood pressure changes during radiofrequency ablation. Complete atrioventricular block was produced in nine of 16 patients and high-grade second-degree atrioventricular block was produced in one patient with radiofrequency current. Attenuated His bundle electrograms could still be recorded in the remaining six patients, four of whom underwent successful atrioventricular junctional ablation using direct-current shock during the same session. Atrioventricular block persisted in all 10 patients successfully treated with radiofrequency ablation during a mean follow-up of 4.2 months. Compared with a group of historic control subjects treated with direct-current shock ablation, the 10 patients successfully treated with radiofrequency current had significantly less creatine kinase-MB isoenzyme release (5.7 +/- 5.1 vs. 22 +/- 13 IU, p = 0.006). A junctional escape rhythm was present in all patients after radiofrequency-induced atrioventricular block. In contrast, three of 10 control patients had an idioventricular escape after direct current shock ablation, and four patients had no escape rhythm at all.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
使用直流除颤器放电对房室结进行导管消融需要全身麻醉,且可能有严重副作用。16例药物难治性室上性心动过速患者接受了使用射频能量对房室结进行的导管消融。将一根标准的7F四极电极导管放置在记录来自远端电极的最大单极希氏电位(580±640微伏)的位置。一台电凝器(Microvasive Bicap 4005)以550千赫兹提供连续、未调制的能量。在远端电极和一个大直径胸壁电极之间施加1至14次射频电流。16例患者中有7例报告有短暂、轻微的胸部不适。在射频消融期间,无一例出现明显心律失常或血压变化。16例患者中有9例出现完全性房室传导阻滞,1例患者出现高度二度房室传导阻滞。其余6例患者仍可记录到衰减的希氏束电图,其中4例在同一次手术中使用直流电休克成功进行了房室结消融。在平均4.2个月的随访期间,所有10例成功接受射频消融治疗的患者的房室传导阻滞均持续存在。与一组接受直流电休克消融治疗的历史对照受试者相比,10例成功接受射频电流治疗的患者的肌酸激酶-MB同工酶释放明显更少(5.7±5.1对22±13国际单位,p=0.006)。射频诱导房室传导阻滞后,所有患者均出现交界性逸搏心律。相比之下,10例对照患者中有3例在直流电休克消融后出现心室逸搏,4例患者根本没有逸搏心律。(摘要截短至250字)