Suppr超能文献

心动过速-心动过缓综合征患者射频导管消融与永久性起搏器植入的长期临床结局

Long-term Clinical Outcomes of Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation versus Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients with Tachycardia-Bradycardia Syndrome.

作者信息

Cho Sang Cheol, Jin Eun Sun, Om Sang Yong, Hwang Ki Won, Choi Hyung Oh, Kim Ki Hun, Kim Sung Hwan, Park Kyoung Min, Kim Jun, Choi Ki Joon, Kim You Ho, Nam Gi Byoung

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.

Cardiovascular Center, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

Korean Circ J. 2020 Nov;50(11):998-1009. doi: 10.4070/kcj.2020.0065. Epub 2020 Jul 16.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Pacemaker (PM) implantation is a well-accepted treatment option for patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) and related tachycardia-bradycardia syndrome (TBS). Data on the long-term clinical outcomes after radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) or PM implantation are sparse.

METHODS

The medical records of 217 patients with TBS were retrospectively assessed. Outcomes in patients who underwent RFCA (n=108, 49.8%) were compared to those with PM implantation (n=109, 50.2%). The clinical outcomes were sinus rhythm maintenance, conversion to persistent AF, additional procedure or crossover, and the composite of cardiovascular hospitalization and death.

RESULTS

During the follow-up period (mean 3.5±2.0 years), the RFCA group, compared to the PM group, showed better sinus rhythm maintenance (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.46; p=0.002) and less progression to persistent AF (aHR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.63; p=0.006). Additional procedure or crossover did not differ significantly between the groups (aHR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.71-6.06; p=0.185 and aHR, 0.69; 95% CI, 10.8-2.67; p=0.590, respectively). Most RFCA patients (92.6%) did not require pacemaker implantation during long term follow-up period (>3.5 years). The composite endpoint of cardiovascular rehospitalization and death was not significantly different between the groups (aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.50-1.66; p=0.769).

CONCLUSIONS

RFCA is an effective alternative to PM implantation in patients with TBS. In these patients, successful RF ablation of AF is related to a higher rate of sinus rhythm maintenance compared to PM implantation, and the composite outcome of cardiovascular rehospitalization and death is similar.

摘要

背景与目的

起搏器(PM)植入是阵发性心房颤动(AF)及相关心动过速-心动过缓综合征(TBS)患者广泛接受的治疗选择。关于射频导管消融(RFCA)或PM植入术后长期临床结局的数据较少。

方法

回顾性评估217例TBS患者的病历。将接受RFCA的患者(n = 108,49.8%)与接受PM植入的患者(n = 109,50.2%)的结局进行比较。临床结局包括窦性心律维持、转为持续性AF、额外手术或交叉治疗,以及心血管住院和死亡的复合终点。

结果

在随访期(平均3.5±2.0年)内,与PM组相比,RFCA组窦性心律维持情况更好(调整后风险比[aHR],0.27;95%置信区间[CI],0.15 - 0.46;p = 0.002),进展为持续性AF的情况更少(aHR,0.20;95% CI,0.06 - 0.63;p = 0.006)。两组间额外手术或交叉治疗无显著差异(aHR分别为2.07;95% CI,0.71 - 6.06;p = 0.185和aHR,0.69;95% CI,10.8 - 2.67;p = 0.590)。大多数RFCA患者(92.6%)在长期随访期(>3.5年)内无需植入起搏器。两组间心血管再住院和死亡的复合终点无显著差异(aHR,0.92;95% CI,0.50 - 1.66;p = 0.769)。

结论

对于TBS患者,RFCA是PM植入的有效替代方案。在这些患者中,与PM植入相比,成功的AF射频消融与更高的窦性心律维持率相关,且心血管再住院和死亡的复合结局相似。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/24e1/7596208/c1f32ea05acc/kcj-50-998-g001.jpg

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