Suppr超能文献

首次接受冷冻球囊消融和射频导管消融治疗阵发性心房颤动的患者之间,重复消融的电生理发现存在差异。

Differences in the electrophysiological findings of repeat ablation between patients who first underwent cryoballoon ablation and radiofrequency catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, Japanese Red Cross Saitama Hospital, Saitama, Japan.

Heart Rhythm Center, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.

出版信息

J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019 Oct;30(10):1792-1800. doi: 10.1111/jce.14065. Epub 2019 Jul 25.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Several studies have revealed that second-generation cryoballoon (CB)-based pulmonary vein (PV) isolation is noninferior to radiofrequency (RF)-based PV isolation for patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). However, electrophysiological differences in repeat ablation remain unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study examined electrophysiological differences during the repeat ablation between patients who first underwent RF catheter ablation and CB ablation; PV durability and non-PV AF foci were assessed for these patients. We enrolled 919 and 491 patients who underwent CB ablation (CB group) and RF catheter ablation (RF group), respectively, for paroxysmal AF between January 2013 and June 2017 at our institution. PV isolation using RF ablation involved the left atrium (LA) antrum and part of the LA posterior wall. After 2 years of follow-up, 62 and 80 patients in the CB and RF groups, respectively, underwent repeat ablation. PV reconnections were more frequent in the RF group than in the CB group (left superior PV: 46.2% and 14.5%, P < .001; left inferior PV: 35.0% and 11.2%, P = .001; right superior PV: 40.0% and 22.6%, P = .031; right inferior PV: 36.2% and 19.4%, P = .039; PVs: 39.8% and 16.9%, P < .001). LA AF foci were more frequent in the CB group than in the RF group (27.4% and 7.5%; P = .002). Other non-PV foci were prevalent in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Fewer LA-PV reconnections occurred with CB ablation. However, extensive PV isolation may eliminate many LA AF foci.

摘要

简介

多项研究表明,对于药物难治性阵发性心房颤动(AF)患者,第二代冷冻球囊(CB)为基础的肺静脉(PV)隔离与射频(RF)为基础的 PV 隔离相比无差异。然而,重复消融的电生理差异尚不清楚。

方法和结果

本研究检查了首次接受 RF 导管消融和 CB 消融的患者之间重复消融期间的电生理差异;评估了这些患者的 PV 持久性和非-PV AF 灶。我们招募了 919 例和 491 例分别于 2013 年 1 月至 2017 年 6 月在我院行 CB 消融(CB 组)和 RF 导管消融(RF 组)治疗阵发性 AF 的患者。RF 消融的 PV 隔离包括左心房(LA)窦和 LA 后壁的一部分。在 2 年的随访后,CB 组和 RF 组分别有 62 例和 80 例患者进行了重复消融。RF 组的 PV 再连接比 CB 组更频繁(左上 PV:46.2%和 14.5%,P<0.001;左下 PV:35.0%和 11.2%,P=0.001;右上 PV:40.0%和 22.6%,P=0.031;右下 PV:36.2%和 19.4%,P=0.039;PVs:39.8%和 16.9%,P<0.001)。CB 组的 LA AF 灶比 RF 组更常见(27.4%和 7.5%;P=0.002)。两组均存在其他非-PV 灶。

结论

CB 消融时 LA-PV 再连接较少。然而,广泛的 PV 隔离可能会消除许多 LA AF 灶。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验