Suppr超能文献

三尖瓣峡部依赖型房扑消融的结局:比较单根导管与多根导管消融的随机研究——SIMPLE 研究。

Outcomes of cavotricuspid isthmus-dependent flutter ablation: randomized study comparing single vs. multiple catheter procedures-the SIMPLE study.

机构信息

Heart Institute, Teknon Medical Center, C/ Vilana, 12, Barcelona, 08022, Spain.

Puerta del Mar University Hospital, Cádiz, Spain.

出版信息

J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2023 Dec;66(9):1979-1988. doi: 10.1007/s10840-023-01511-1. Epub 2023 Mar 6.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Catheter ablation is recommended as first-line therapy for patients with symptomatic typical AFl. Although the conventional multi-catheter approach is the standard of care for cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation, a single-catheter approach was recently described as a feasible alternative. The present study sought to compare safety, efficacy, and efficiency of single vs. multi-catheter approach for atrial flutter (AFl) ablation.

METHODS

In this randomized multi-center study, consecutive patients referred for AFl ablation (n = 253) were enrolled and randomized to multiple vs. single-catheter approach for CTI ablation. In the single-catheter arm, PR interval (PRI) on the surface ECG was used to prove CTI block. Procedural and follow-up data were collected and compared between the two arms.

RESULTS

128 and 125 patients were assigned to the single-catheter and to the multi-catheter arms, respectively. In the single-catheter arm, procedure time was significantly shorter (37 ± 25 vs. 48 ± 27 minutes, p = 0.002) and required less fluoroscopy time (430 ± 461 vs. 712 ± 628 seconds, p < 0.001) and less radiofrequency time (428 ± 316 vs. 643 ± 519 seconds, p < 0.001), achieving a higher first-pass CTI block rate (55 (45%) vs. 37 (31%), p = 0.044), compared with the multi-catheter arm. After a median follow-up of 12 months, 11 (4%) patients experienced AFl recurrences (5 (4%) in the single-catheter arm and 6 (5%) in the multi-catheter arm, p = 0.99). No differences were found in arrhythmia-free survival between arms (log-rank = 0.71).

CONCLUSIONS

The single-catheter approach for typical AFl ablation is not inferior to the conventional multiple-catheter approach, reducing procedure, fluoroscopy, and radiofrequency time.

摘要

背景

对于有症状的典型心房颤动(AFl)患者,导管消融被推荐作为一线治疗方法。虽然传统的多导管方法是峡部消融的标准治疗方法,但最近描述了一种单导管方法作为可行的替代方法。本研究旨在比较单导管与多导管方法治疗心房扑动(AFl)消融的安全性、疗效和效率。

方法

在这项随机多中心研究中,连续入组的 AFl 消融患者(n=253)被随机分为多导管组和单导管组进行峡部消融。在单导管组中,体表心电图上的 PR 间期(PRI)用于证明峡部阻滞。收集并比较了两组的手术和随访数据。

结果

128 例和 125 例患者分别被分配到单导管组和多导管组。在单导管组中,手术时间明显缩短(37±25 分钟 vs. 48±27 分钟,p=0.002),透视时间(430±461 秒 vs. 712±628 秒,p<0.001)和射频时间(428±316 秒 vs. 643±519 秒,p<0.001)均减少,首次通过峡部阻滞率更高(55(45%) vs. 37(31%),p=0.044)。与多导管组相比。在中位随访 12 个月后,11 例(4%)患者出现 AFl 复发(单导管组 5 例[4%],多导管组 6 例[5%],p=0.99)。两组间无心律失常生存率无差异(对数秩检验=0.71)。

结论

对于典型 AFl 消融,单导管方法并不逊于传统的多导管方法,可以减少手术、透视和射频时间。

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