Yuan Shiwen, Holmqvist Fredrik, Kongstad Ole, Jensen Steen M, Wang Lingwei, Ljungström Erik, Hertervig Eva, Borgquist Rasmus
a Section of Arrhythmias , Skåne University Hospital, Lund University , Lund , Sweden.
Scand Cardiovasc J. 2017 Dec;51(6):308-315. doi: 10.1080/14017431.2017.1384566. Epub 2017 Sep 28.
Comparisons between remote magnetic (RMN) and manual catheter navigation for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation have earlier been reported with controversial results. However, these reports were based on earlier generations of the RMN system.
To evaluate the outcomes of the most current RMN system for AF ablation in a larger patient population with longer follow-up time, 112 patients with AF (78 paroxysmal, 34 persistent) who underwent AF ablation utilizing RMN (RMN group) were compared to 102 AF ablation patients (72 paroxysmal, 30 persistent) utilizing manual technique (Manual group).
The RMN group was associated with significantly shorter fluoroscopy time (10.4 ± 6.4 vs. 16.3 ± 10.9 min, p < .001) but used more RF energy (64.1 ± 19.4KJ vs. 54.3 ± 24.1 KJ, p < .05), while total procedure time showed no significant difference (201 ± 35 vs. 196 ± 44 min, NS). After 39 ± 9/44 ± 10 months of follow-up, AF-free rates at 1year, 2 years and 3.5 years post ablation were 63%, 46% and 42% in the RMN group vs. 60%, 32% and 30% (survival analysis p < .05) in the Manual group, whereas clinically effective rates were 82%, 73% and 70% for the former vs. 70%, 56% and 49% for the latter (survival analysis p < .005).
Differing from previous reports, our data from a larger patient population and longer follow-up time demonstrates that compared to manual technique, the most current RMN technique is associated with better procedural and clinical outcomes for AF ablation.
此前已有关于心房颤动(AF)消融术中远程磁导航(RMN)与手动导管导航对比的报道,但结果存在争议。然而,这些报道基于早期版本的RMN系统。
为了在更大规模的患者群体中、更长的随访时间内评估当前最新RMN系统用于AF消融的效果,将112例接受RMN辅助AF消融的患者(RMN组,其中阵发性AF 78例,持续性AF 34例)与102例采用手动技术进行AF消融的患者(手动组,其中阵发性AF 72例,持续性AF 30例)进行比较。
RMN组的透视时间显著更短(10.4±6.4分钟 vs. 16.3±10.9分钟,p<.001),但使用的射频能量更多(64.1±19.4千焦 vs. 54.3±24.1千焦,p<.05),而总手术时间无显著差异(201±35分钟 vs. 196±44分钟,无统计学意义)。在39±9/44±10个月的随访后,RMN组在消融术后1年、2年和3.5年的无AF率分别为63%、46%和42%,而手动组分别为60%、32%和30%(生存分析p<.05);前者的临床有效率分别为82%、73%和70%,后者分别为70%、56%和49%(生存分析p<.005)。
与之前的报道不同,我们来自更大规模患者群体和更长随访时间的数据表明,与手动技术相比,当前最新的RMN技术用于AF消融具有更好的手术和临床效果。