Electrophysiology Section, Cardiovascular Division, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Electrophysiology Section, Cardiovascular Division, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Heart Rhythm. 2024 Feb;21(2):133-140. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.11.005. Epub 2023 Nov 11.
In arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), risk of atrial arrhythmias (AAs) persists after ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation.
The purpose of this study was to determine the type, prevalence, outcome, and risk correlates of AA in ARVC in patients undergoing VT ablation.
Prospectively collected procedural and clinical data on ARVC patients undergoing VT ablation were analyzed. Risk score for typical atrial flutter was determined from univariate logistic regression analysis.
Of 119 consecutive patients with ARVC and VT ablation, 40 (34%) had AA: atrial fibrillation (AF) in 31, typical isthmus-dependent atrial flutter (AFL) in 27, and atrial tachycardia/atypical flutter (AT) in 10. Seventeen patients (43%) with AA experienced inappropriate defibrillator therapy, with 15 patients experiencing shocks. Ablation was performed for typical AFL in 21 (53%), AT in 5 (13%), and pulmonary vein isolation for AF in 4 (10%) patients and prevented AA in 78% and all AFL during additional mean follow-up of 65 months. Risk score for typical flutter included age >40 years (1 point), ≥moderate right ventricular dysfunction (2 points), ≥moderate tricuspid regurgitation (2 points), ≥moderate right atrial dilation (2 points), and right ventricular volume >250 cc (3points), with score >4 identifying 50% prevalence of typical flutter.
AAs are common in patients with ARVC and VT, can result in inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks, and typically are controlled with atrial ablation. A risk score can be used to identify patients at high risk for typical AFL who may be considered for isthmus ablation at the time of VT ablation.
在致心律失常性右心室心肌病(ARVC)中,室性心动过速(VT)消融后仍存在心房性心律失常(AAs)的风险。
本研究旨在确定 ARVC 患者 VT 消融后 AA 的类型、发生率、结局和相关风险。
分析了行 VT 消融的 ARVC 患者的前瞻性收集的程序和临床数据。采用单变量逻辑回归分析确定典型房扑的风险评分。
在 119 例连续的 ARVC 伴 VT 消融患者中,有 40 例(34%)出现 AA:房颤(AF)31 例,典型峡部依赖性房扑(AFL)27 例,房性心动过速/非典型房扑(AT)10 例。17 例(43%)有 AA 的患者经历了不适当的除颤器治疗,其中 15 例发生了电击。21 例(53%)AA 患者行典型 AFL 消融,5 例(13%)AT 患者行消融,4 例(10%)AF 患者行肺静脉隔离,78%的患者预防了 AA,所有 AFL 在额外的平均 65 个月随访中均得到预防。典型房扑的风险评分包括年龄>40 岁(1 分)、≥中度右心室功能障碍(2 分)、≥中度三尖瓣反流(2 分)、≥中度右心房扩张(2 分)和右心室容积>250 cc(3 分),评分>4 分提示典型房扑的发生率为 50%。
ARVC 和 VT 患者中 AA 很常见,可导致植入式心脏复律除颤器的不适当电击,通常可通过心房消融控制。风险评分可用于识别高风险的典型 AFL 患者,他们可能在 VT 消融时考虑峡部消融。