Suppr超能文献

窦性心律与心房颤动期间射频消融轮廓的差异:高功率短持续时间策略时代的考量

Difference in radiofrequency ablation profile between during sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation: Considerations in this era of high-power short-duration strategy.

作者信息

Hara Satoshi, Kusa Shigeki, Sato Yoshikazu, Ohya Hiroaki, Miwa Naoyuki, Hirano Hidenori, Ishizawa Taiki, Nakata Tadanori, Doi Junichi, Hachiya Hitoshi

机构信息

Cardiovascular Center, Tsuchiura Kyodo Hospital Tsuchiura Ibaraki Japan.

出版信息

J Arrhythm. 2024 Mar 18;40(3):448-454. doi: 10.1002/joa3.13025. eCollection 2024 Jun.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The concept of ablation index (AI) was introduced to evaluate radiofrequency (RF) ablation lesions. It is calculated from power, contact force (CF), and RF duration. However, other factors may also affect the quality of ablation lesions. To examine the difference in RF lesions made during sinus rhythm (SR) and atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

Sixty patients underwent index pulmonary vein isolation during SR ( = 30, SR group) or AF ( = 30, AF group). All ablations were performed with a power of 50 W, a targeted CF of 5-15 g, and AI of 400-450 using Thermocool Smarttouch SF. The CF, AI, RF duration, temperature rise (Δtemp), impedance drop (Δimp), and the CF stability of each ablation point quantified as the standard deviation of the CF (CF-SD) were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 3579 ablation points were analyzed, which included 1618 and 1961 points in the SR and the AF groups, respectively. Power, average CF, RF duration per point, and the resultant AI (389 ± 59 vs. 388 ± 57) were similar for the two rhythms. However, differences were seen in the CF-SD (3.5 ± 2.2 vs. 3.8 ± 2.1 g,  < .01), Δtemp (3.8 ± 1.3 vs. 4.0 ± 1.3°C,  < .005), and Δimp (10.3 ± 5.8 vs. 9.4 ± 5.4 Ω,  < .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite similar AI, various RF parameters differed according to the underlying atrial rhythm. Ablation delivered during SR demonstrated less CF variability and temperature increase and greater impedance drop than during AF.

摘要

背景

引入消融指数(AI)概念以评估射频(RF)消融损伤。它由功率、接触力(CF)和射频持续时间计算得出。然而,其他因素也可能影响消融损伤的质量。为研究窦性心律(SR)和心房颤动(AF)期间进行的射频损伤差异。

方法

60例患者在SR(n = 30,SR组)或AF(n = 30,AF组)期间接受指数肺静脉隔离。所有消融均使用Thermocool Smarttouch SF以50 W的功率、5 - 15 g的目标CF和400 - 450的AI进行。比较两组之间的CF、AI、射频持续时间、温度升高(Δtemp)、阻抗下降(Δimp)以及每个消融点的CF稳定性(量化为CF的标准差(CF - SD))。

结果

共分析了3579个消融点,其中SR组和AF组分别有1618个和1961个点。两种心律的功率、平均CF、每个点的射频持续时间以及所得AI(389 ± 59 vs. 388 ± 57)相似。然而,在CF - SD(3.5 ± 2.2 vs. 3.8 ± 2.1 g,P <.01)、Δtemp(3.8 ± 1.3 vs. 4.0 ± 1.3°C,P <.005)和Δimp(10.3 ± 5.8 vs. 9.4 ± 5.4 Ω,P <.005)方面存在差异。

结论

尽管AI相似,但各种射频参数因基础心房节律而异。与AF期间相比,SR期间进行的消融显示出CF变异性和温度升高较小,阻抗下降较大。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8d4e/11199806/46a888d3f085/JOA3-40-448-g002.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