Aras Dursun, Topaloglu Serkan, Cay Serkan, Ozeke Ozcan, Ozcan Firat, Cagirci Goksel
Department of Cardiology, Division of Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, Yuksek Ihtisas Heart-Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Department of Cardiology, Division of Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, Yuksek Ihtisas Heart-Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 2017 Mar-Apr;17(2):36-43. doi: 10.1016/j.ipej.2017.02.004. Epub 2017 Feb 20.
Pulmonary vein isolation is effective in reducing atrial fibrillation (AF) episodes. Previous studies suggest single-shot techniques are effective and safe for this purpose. Procedural and clinical outcomes were compared between multi-electrode and point-by-point radiofrequency ablations by performing a meta-analysis of all randomized and non-randomized studies.
Systematic reviews of MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases were performed. Studies comparing procedural (procedure and fluoroscopy times) and clinical (AF recurrence) outcomes were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 13 clinical studies (5 randomized and 8 non-randomized) including 2152 patients met the inclusion criteria. In patients underwent multi-electrode ablation, there were significant reductions in both total procedure and fluoroscopy times, compared with point-by-point ablation (mean difference = -34.3 min [95% CI (-50.1 to -18.5)], p < 0.001 and mean difference = -7.1 min [95% CI (-12.0 to -2.2)], p < 0.01, respectively). These significances also continued in patients with paroxysmal AF. No such difference was observed in regard to AF recurrence between the 2 ablation strategies (RR = 0.90 [95% CI (0.80-1.01)], p = 0.066). This insignificance was also observed in patients with paroxysmal AF.
In a heterogeneous AF population, multi-electrode ablation is as effective as point-by-point ablation, with better procedural and fluoroscopy durations.
肺静脉隔离术在减少房颤(AF)发作方面是有效的。先前的研究表明,单次技术用于此目的是有效且安全的。通过对所有随机和非随机研究进行荟萃分析,比较了多电极和逐点射频消融的手术和临床结果。
对MEDLINE和Cochrane图书馆数据库进行了系统评价。比较手术(手术时间和透视时间)和临床(房颤复发)结果的研究纳入荟萃分析。共有13项临床研究(5项随机研究和8项非随机研究),包括2152例患者符合纳入标准。与逐点消融相比,接受多电极消融的患者在总手术时间和透视时间上均有显著缩短(平均差值=-34.3分钟[95%CI(-50.1至-18.5)],p<0.001;平均差值=-7.1分钟[95%CI(-12.0至-2.2)],p<0.01)。这些差异在阵发性房颤患者中也持续存在。两种消融策略在房颤复发方面未观察到差异(RR=0.90[95%CI(0.80-1.01)],p=0.066)。在阵发性房颤患者中也观察到这种无差异情况。
在异质性房颤人群中,多电极消融与逐点消融效果相同,但手术时间和透视时间更短。