Silva Márcio Augusto, Futuro Guilherme Muller de Campos, Merçon Erick Sessa, Vasconcelos Deborah, Agrizzi Rovana Silva, Elias Neto Jorge, Kuniyoshi Ricardo
Vitória Apart Hospital, Serra, ES - Brazil.
Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020 Mar;114(3):435-442. doi: 10.36660/abc.20180386.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation under uninterrupted warfarin use is safe and recommended by experts. However, there is some controversy regarding direct-acting oral anticoagulants for the same purpose.
To evaluate the safety of AF ablation under uninterrupted anticoagulation with rivaroxaban.
A series of 130 patients underwent AF radiofrequency ablation under uninterrupted rivaroxaban use (RIV group) and was compared to a control group of 110 patients under uninterrupted warfarin use (WFR group) and therapeutic International Normalized Ratio (INR). We analyzed death, rates of thromboembolic events, major and minor bleedings, activated clotting time (ACT) levels, and heparin dose in the procedure. The ablation protocol basically consisted of circumferential isolation of the pulmonary veins guided by electroanatomic mapping. It was adopted a statistical significance of 5%.
The clinical characteristics of the groups were similar, and the paroxysmal AF was the most frequent type (63% and 59%, RIV and WFR groups). A thromboembolic event occurred in the RIV group. There were 3 patients with major bleeding (RIV = 1 and WFR = 2; p = 0.5); no deaths. Basal INR was higher in the WFR group (2.5 vs. 1.2 ± 0.02; p < 0.0001), with similar basal ACT levels (123.7 ± 3 vs. 118 ± 4; p= 0, 34). A higher dose of venous heparin was used in the RIV group (9,414 ± 199 vs. 6,019 ± 185 IU; p < 0.0001) to maintain similar mean ACT levels during the procedure (350 ± 3 vs. 348.9 ± 4; p = 0.79).
In the study population, AF ablation under uninterrupted rivaroxaban showed a safety profile that was equivalent to uninterrupted warfarin use with therapeutic INR.
在持续使用华法林的情况下进行房颤消融术是安全的,且得到了专家的推荐。然而,对于出于相同目的使用直接口服抗凝剂存在一些争议。
评估在持续使用利伐沙班抗凝的情况下进行房颤消融术的安全性。
对130例在持续使用利伐沙班的情况下接受房颤射频消融术的患者(利伐沙班组)进行了研究,并与110例在持续使用华法林及治疗性国际标准化比值(INR)的对照组患者(华法林组)进行比较。我们分析了死亡、血栓栓塞事件发生率、大出血和小出血、活化凝血时间(ACT)水平以及术中肝素剂量。消融方案基本包括在电解剖标测引导下对肺静脉进行环周隔离。采用5%的统计学显著性水平。
两组的临床特征相似,阵发性房颤是最常见的类型(利伐沙班组和华法林组分别为63%和59%)。利伐沙班组发生了1例血栓栓塞事件。有3例大出血患者(利伐沙班组1例,华法林组2例;p = 0.5);无死亡病例。华法林组的基础INR较高(2.5 vs. 1.2±0.02;p < 0.0001),基础ACT水平相似(123.7±3 vs. 118±4;p = 0.34)。利伐沙班组使用了更高剂量的静脉肝素(9414±199 vs. 6019±185 IU;p < 0.0001)以在术中维持相似的平均ACT水平(350±3 vs. 348.9±4;p = 0.79)。
在研究人群中,持续使用利伐沙班进行房颤消融术显示出与持续使用华法林及治疗性INR相当的安全性。