Department of Cardiology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Clinical Research Division for Heart Rhythm Management, Department of Cardiology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 Dec;31(12):3132-3140. doi: 10.1111/jce.14782. Epub 2020 Oct 27.
Some patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) require atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, and the superior vena cava (SVC) has been identified as one of the most common non-pulmonary vein foci of AF. This study aimed to investigate the interaction between SVC isolation (SVCI) and CIED leads implanted through the SVC.
We studied 34 patients with CIEDs who had undergone SVCI as part of AF ablation (CIED group), involving a total of 71 CIED leads. A similar number of age-, sex-, and AF type-matched patients without CIEDs formed a control group (non-CIED group). Patients' background and procedural characteristics were compared between the groups. In the CIED group, lead parameters before and after AF ablation were compared, and lead failure after AF ablation was also examined in detail. Procedural characteristics other than fluoroscopic time were similar in both groups. The success rate of SVCI after the final ablation procedure was 91.2% in the CIED group and 100% in the non-CIED group; however, these differences were not statistically significant. Lead parameters before and after the AF ablation did not significantly differ between the two groups. Lead failure was observed in three patients, with a sensing noise in one patient and an impedance increase in two patients after SVCI.
SVCI was achievable without lead failure and significant change in lead parameters in most patients with CIEDs; however, it should be noted that lead failure was observed in 8.8% of the study patients after SVCI.
一些患有心脏植入式电子设备(CIEDs)的患者需要进行心房颤动(AF)消融,而上腔静脉(SVC)已被确定为 AF 的最常见非肺静脉病灶之一。本研究旨在探讨 SVC 隔离(SVCI)与通过 SVC 植入的 CIED 导线之间的相互作用。
我们研究了 34 名作为 AF 消融一部分接受 SVCI 的 CIED 患者(CIED 组),共涉及 71 根 CIED 导线。我们还选择了一组年龄、性别和 AF 类型匹配的、无 CIED 的患者作为对照组(非-CIED 组)。比较了两组患者的背景和程序特征。在 CIED 组中,比较了 AF 消融前后的导线参数,并详细检查了 AF 消融后的导线故障情况。除透视时间外,两组的程序特征相似。CIED 组中,最终消融手术后 SVCI 的成功率为 91.2%,而非-CIED 组为 100%;然而,这些差异没有统计学意义。AF 消融前后两组的导线参数没有显著差异。在 3 名患者中观察到导线故障,其中 1 名患者出现感知噪声,2 名患者在 SVCI 后出现阻抗增加。
在大多数 CIED 患者中,SVCI 可实现而不会导致导线故障和导线参数发生显著变化;然而,应该注意到,在 SVCI 后,8.8%的研究患者观察到导线故障。