Olgin J E, Scheinman M M
Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco 94143.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993 Mar 1;21(3):557-64. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(93)90084-e.
The goal of the study was to determine short- and long-term success and complications of radiofrequency atrioventricular (AV) junction catheter ablation and to compare these with those of high energy direct current catheter ablation.
Catheter ablation of the AV junction with radiofrequency or direct current energy is an accepted treatment for drug-refractory supraventricular tachycardias. Few data are available on the long-term success and effects of radiofrequency ablation or its comparison with direct current ablation.
Fifty-four patients who underwent attempted AV junction ablation with radiofrequency energy were followed up for a mean of 24 +/- 8.4 months. These patients were retrospectively compared with 49 patients who underwent attempted AV junction ablation with direct current energy and were followed up for a mean of 41 +/- 23 months.
The early success rate at the time of discharge for radiofrequency ablation was 81.5%, which was not statistically different from that for direct current ablation (85.7%). Fewer sessions were required to achieve complete AV block in the radiofrequency group (1.05 +/- 0.23) (mean +/- SD) compared with the direct current group (1.21 +/- 0.41) (p = 0.02). Although overall complication rates were similar for both groups (9.3% in the radiofrequency group and 8.2% in the direct current group), there was a trend toward more life-threatening early complications in those patients who received direct-current shocks (6.8%) than in those who underwent radiofrequency ablation alone (2.3%) (p = 0.1). Early sudden death (one patient), early ventricular tachycardia (two patients) and cardiac tamponade (one patient) were seen only in those patients who underwent ablation with direct current energy, whereas pulmonary embolism (one patient) was the only early life-threatening complication in the radiofrequency group. During follow-up, the rate of recurrence of AV conduction was the same (5%) for both the direct current and radiofrequency groups. In the direct current group, one patient died suddenly 2 weeks after the procedure and another had a cardiac arrest due to ventricular tachycardia 6 h after the procedure. In the radiofrequency group, two patients died suddenly at 11 and 7 months, respectively. Two patients, one who had unsuccessful radiofrequency ablation and required direct current ablation, were resuscitated from ventricular tachycardia.
Radiofrequency energy appears to be as efficacious as and perhaps safer than direct current energy for AV junction ablation.
本研究的目的是确定射频房室交界区导管消融的短期和长期成功率及并发症,并将其与高能直流电导管消融的结果进行比较。
采用射频或直流电能量进行房室交界区导管消融是药物难治性室上性心动过速的一种公认治疗方法。关于射频消融的长期成功率、效果及其与直流电消融的比较,目前可用的数据较少。
对54例行射频能量房室交界区消融术的患者进行了平均24±8.4个月的随访。将这些患者与49例行直流电能量房室交界区消融术且平均随访41±23个月的患者进行回顾性比较。
射频消融出院时的早期成功率为81.5%,与直流电消融(85.7%)无统计学差异。与直流电组(1.21±0.41)相比,射频组达到完全性房室传导阻滞所需的消融次数更少(1.05±0.23)(平均±标准差)(p = 0.02)。尽管两组的总体并发症发生率相似(射频组为9.3%,直流电组为8.2%),但接受直流电电击的患者(6.8%)出现危及生命的早期并发症的趋势高于仅接受射频消融的患者(2.3%)(p = 0.1)。早期猝死(1例患者)、早期室性心动过速(2例患者)和心脏压塞(1例患者)仅见于接受直流电能量消融的患者,而肺栓塞(1例患者)是射频组唯一的早期危及生命的并发症。随访期间,直流电组和射频组的房室传导复发率相同(5%)。在直流电组,1例患者术后2周突然死亡,另1例患者术后6小时因室性心动过速发生心脏骤停。在射频组,2例患者分别在11个月和7个月时突然死亡。2例患者,其中1例射频消融失败需要直流电消融,从室性心动过速中复苏。
对于房室交界区消融,射频能量似乎与直流电能量一样有效,甚至可能更安全。