Suppr超能文献

零透视导管消融治疗心房颤动:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。

Zero fluoroscopy catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Debreceni Dorottya, Janosi Kristof, Bocz Botond, Turcsan Marton, Lukacs Reka, Simor Tamas, Antolič Bor, Vamos Mate, Komocsi Andras, Kupo Peter

机构信息

Heart Institute, Medical School, University of Pecs, Pecs, Hungary.

Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

出版信息

Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023 Jun 16;10:1178783. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1178783. eCollection 2023.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequently performed cardiac ablation procedure worldwide. The majority of ablations can now be performed safely with minimal radiation exposure or even without the use of fluoroscopy, thanks to advances in 3-dimensional electroanatomical mapping systems and/or intracardiac echocardiography. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of zero fluoroscopy (ZF) versus non-zero fluoroscopy (NZF) strategies for AF ablation procedures.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched and systematically reviewed for studies comparing procedural parameters and outcomes of ZF vs. NZF approaches in patients undergoing catheter ablation for AF. We used a random-effects model to derive the mean difference (MD) and risk ratios (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included seven studies comprising 1,593 patients. The ZF approach was found to be feasible in 95.1% of patients. Compared to the NZF approach, the ZF approach significantly reduced procedure time [mean difference (MD): -9.11 min (95% CI: -12.93 to -5.30 min;  < 0.01)], fluoroscopy time [MD: -5.21 min (95% CI: -5.51 to -4.91 min;  < 0.01)], and fluoroscopy dose [MD: -3.96 mGy (95% CI: -4.27 to -3.64;  < 0.01)]. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of total ablation time [MD: -104.26 s (95% CI: -183.37 to -25.14;  = 0.12)]. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the acute [risk ratio (RR): 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00-1.02;  = 0.72] and long-term success rates (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.90-1.03;  = 0.56) between the ZF and NZF methods. The complication rate was 2.76% in the entire study population and did not differ between the groups (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.41-2.15;  = 0.89).

CONCLUSION

The ZF approach is a feasible method for AF ablation procedures. It significantly reduces procedure time and radiation exposure without compromising the acute and long-term success rates or complication rates.

摘要

引言

心房颤动(AF)导管消融术是全球最常施行的心脏消融手术。由于三维电解剖标测系统和/或心腔内超声心动图技术的进步,现在大多数消融手术都能在辐射暴露极少甚至不使用荧光透视的情况下安全进行。本研究的目的是进行一项荟萃分析,比较零荧光透视(ZF)与非零荧光透视(NZF)策略在房颤消融手术中的有效性。

方法

检索电子数据库并系统回顾比较房颤导管消融患者中ZF与NZF方法的手术参数和结果的研究。我们使用随机效应模型得出平均差(MD)和风险比(RR)以及95%置信区间(CI)。

结果

我们的荟萃分析纳入了7项研究,共1593例患者。发现ZF方法在95.1%的患者中可行。与NZF方法相比,ZF方法显著缩短了手术时间[平均差(MD):-9.11分钟(95%CI:-12.93至-5.30分钟;<0.01)]、荧光透视时间[MD:-5.21分钟(95%CI:-5.51至-4.91分钟;<0.01)]和荧光透视剂量[MD:-3.96毫西弗(95%CI:-4.27至-3.64;<0.01)]。然而,两组在总消融时间方面无显著差异[MD:-104.26秒(95%CI:-183.37至-25.14;=0.12)]。此外,ZF和NZF方法在急性成功率[风险比(RR):1.01,95%CI:1.00 - 1.02;=0.72]和长期成功率(RR:0.96,95%CI:0.90 - 1.03;=0.56)方面无显著差异。整个研究人群的并发症发生率为2.76%,两组之间无差异(RR:0.94,95%CI:0.41 - 2.15;=0.89)。

结论

ZF方法是房颤消融手术的一种可行方法。它能显著缩短手术时间并减少辐射暴露,同时不影响急性和长期成功率或并发症发生率。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1f65/10313423/dfa42fbfccaf/fcvm-10-1178783-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