Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute, Dallas, TX, USA.
Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2018 Jan;29(1):167-176. doi: 10.1111/jce.13367. Epub 2017 Nov 10.
Radiofrequency (RF) ablation is effective for slow pathway ablation, but carries a risk of inadvertent AV block requiring permanent pacing. By comparison, cryoablation with a 4-mm distal electrode catheter has not been reported to cause permanent AV block but has been shown to be less effective than RF ablation. We sought to define the safety and efficacy of a 6-mm distal electrode cryoablation catheter for slow pathway ablation in patients with atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT).
Twenty-six U.S. and eight Canadian centers participated in the study. Patients with supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) thought likely to be AVNRT were enrolled. If AVNRT was inducible and confirmed to be the clinical SVT, then the slow pathway was targeted with a cryoablation catheter using a standardized protocol of best practices. Acute success was defined as inducibility of no more than one echo beat after cryoablation. Primary efficacy was defined as acute success and the absence of documented recurrent AVNRT over 6 months of follow-up. Primary safety was a composite of serious procedure-related adverse events and/or device-related complications. Note that 397 subjects met enrollment criteria after the EP study and received cryoablation. Mean ablation procedure duration (including a waiting period) was 89 ± 40 minutes, and mean fluoroscopy time was 4.8 ± 5.9 minutes. Isoproterenol was administered before cryoablation in 53% and after the last lesion in 85% of cases. Acute procedural success was realized in 95% (378 of 397) of subjects. No subject received a permanent pacemaker due to AV block. The slow pathway could not be ablated in 19 subjects, including: 12 due to inefficacy, 2 due to transient AV block, and 5 due to both inefficacy and transient AV block. RF ablation was used in the same procedure in 11 of 19 failed subjects, and was ineffective in 3 subjects. Among the group with acute success, 10 subjects (2.7%) had documented recurrent AVNRT over the 6-month follow-up period, and all occurred within 3 months of the index cryoablation. Serious procedure-related adverse events occurred in 4 subjects (1.0%), including one each: tamponade, pulmonary embolism, femoral vein hemorrhage, and diagnostic EP catheter knotting. None of these serious adverse events were related to use of the cryoablation catheter. Overall, 93% of subjects had successful slow pathway ablation at 6 months with the study cryoablation catheter.
Cryoablation for AVNRT using a focal 6-mm catheter was safe and effective. It resulted in a low risk of recurrence over 6 months of follow-up with no incidence of AV block requiring permanent pacing.
射频(RF)消融术对慢径消融有效,但有导致永久性房室传导阻滞需要永久起搏的风险。相比之下,使用 4mm 远端电极导管的冷冻消融术尚未报道会导致永久性房室传导阻滞,但已被证明不如 RF 消融术有效。我们旨在确定 6mm 远端电极冷冻消融导管在治疗房室结折返性心动过速(AVNRT)患者的慢径消融中的安全性和有效性。
26 个美国和 8 个加拿大中心参与了这项研究。入选的患者有室上性心动过速(SVT),考虑为 AVNRT 可能性大。如果 AVNRT 可诱发且证实为临床 SVT,则使用标准最佳实践方案用冷冻消融导管靶向慢径。急性成功定义为冷冻消融后诱发性心动过速不超过 1 个心搏。主要疗效定义为急性成功和 6 个月随访期间无记录的复发性 AVNRT。主要安全性是严重的与手术相关的不良事件和/或设备相关并发症的综合。请注意,在电生理研究后,有 397 名患者符合入组标准并接受了冷冻消融。平均消融程序持续时间(包括等待期)为 89±40 分钟,平均透视时间为 4.8±5.9 分钟。53%的患者在冷冻消融前给予异丙肾上腺素,85%的患者在最后一个病灶后给予。95%(378 例中的 397 例)的患者达到急性手术成功。无患者因房室传导阻滞而植入永久性起搏器。19 名患者无法消融慢径,包括:12 例因无效,2 例因一过性房室传导阻滞,5 例因无效和一过性房室传导阻滞。在 19 例失败的患者中,有 11 例在同一程序中使用了射频消融,其中 3 例无效。在急性成功组中,10 例(2.7%)在 6 个月的随访期间有记录到复发性 AVNRT,且均发生在指数冷冻消融后 3 个月内。4 例(1.0%)患者发生严重的与手术相关的不良事件,包括各 1 例:心脏压塞、肺栓塞、股静脉出血和诊断性 EP 导管打结。这些严重不良事件均与冷冻消融导管的使用无关。总体而言,在使用研究冷冻消融导管的 6 个月时,93%的患者慢径消融成功。
使用聚焦式 6mm 导管进行 AVNRT 的冷冻消融是安全有效的。在 6 个月的随访中,复发风险较低,无需要永久性起搏的房室传导阻滞。