Fischer B, Jaïs P, Shah D, Chouairi S, Haïssaguerre M, Garrigues S, Poquet F, Gencel L, Clémenty J, Marcus F I
Centre Hospitalier et Universitaire de Bordeaux, Hôpital Cardiologique du Haut-Lévêque, France.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 1996 Dec;7(12):1225-33. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.1996.tb00502.x.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation of common atrial flutter and to determine the optimum target sites in a large series of patients. Three different approaches were used to target the ablation site. The first used a combined anatomic and electrophysiologic approach, whereas the second and the third approaches relied primarily on anatomic guidelines to target the critical area in the atrial flutter reentrant circuit located in the low right atrium.
Recent studies report the efficacy of RF current application in the low right atrial region to interrupt and prevent recurrences of common atrial flutter using either anatomic or electrophysiologic targets. However, larger groups of patients are required to confirm the efficacy of this technique and to specify the target sites.
Two hundred consecutive patients with drug-resistant common atrial flutter were studied. In the first 50 patients, target sites were localized using both anatomic landmarks and electrophysiologic parameters. The anatomic landmarks were area 1 between the tricuspid valve and inferior vena cava orifice; area 2 between the tricuspid valve and coronary sinus ostium; and area 3 between the inferior vena and coronary sinus. The electrophysiologic criterion was to ablate when there was an atrial electrogram occurring during the plateau phase (preceding F wave). The first targeted area was that giving the more stable catheter position. In the following 30 patients, we assessed the effect of RF energy application in a single line to area 1 in the first 10 patients, area 2 in the next 10, and area 3 in the last 10 patients. In the last 120 patients, RF energy was applied only in area 1 using repeated applications. RF energy of 12 to 30 W, or that achieving a temperature of 70 degrees C, was applied for 60 to 90 seconds at each site. The endpoint of the ablation procedure was interruption and noninducibility of common atrial flutter in the first 110 patients and additional isthmal block in 48 of the last 90 patients. Overall, atrial flutter was interrupted and rendered noninducible after a single session in 191 (95%) patients and could not be interrupted in 9 (4.5%) patients. The mean number of RF applications was 12 +/- 8. After a mean follow-up of 24 +/- 9 months, recurrences occurred in 31 (15.5%) patients, 26 of whom underwent a successful second or third session without further recurrences of atrial flutter. Atrial fibrillation not documented before the ablation was detected in 11 patients. On a retrospective analysis of the final successful site in the first group of 50 patients, the location was in area 1 in 39% of patients; area 2 in 36% of patients, and area 3 in 25% of patients. Atrial electrograms recorded at these sites showed a single spike pattern in 46% of patients, and double spike pattern (28%) or fractioned electrogram in 26% patients. When lines of RF lesions were placed at several sites, they produced a success rate of 70%, 40%, and 10% at areas 1, 2, and 3 respectively. In the last series of 120 patients, the procedure was successful in 119 patients: 92% of whom were successfully treated only by a linear lesion between the tricuspid annulus isthmus and the inferior vena cava, and the other 8% by additional applications near the coronary sinus ostium. No complications were observed.
RF catheter ablation of atrial flutter can be done with a high success rate and is safe. The highest success rate is achieved with RF energy applied in the isthmus between the inferior vena cava orifice and the tricuspid valve. However, 15.5% of patients need multiple sessions to achieve success because of recurrence of flutter. Further follow-up is needed to evaluate the long-term effects of this procedure.
本研究的目的是评估射频(RF)导管消融治疗常见心房扑动的疗效和安全性,并在大量患者中确定最佳靶点。采用三种不同方法来确定消融部位。第一种方法是结合解剖学和电生理学方法,而第二种和第三种方法主要依靠解剖学指南来确定位于右心房下部的心房扑动折返环的关键区域。
最近的研究报道了在右心房下部区域应用射频电流,通过解剖学或电生理学靶点来中断和预防常见心房扑动复发的疗效。然而,需要更多患者群体来证实该技术的疗效并明确靶点。
对200例药物难治性常见心房扑动患者进行了研究。在前50例患者中,利用解剖标志和电生理参数来定位靶点。解剖标志为:三尖瓣与下腔静脉口之间的区域1;三尖瓣与冠状窦口之间的区域2;下腔静脉与冠状窦之间的区域3。电生理标准是在平台期(F波之前)出现心房电图时进行消融。首先靶向的区域是导管位置更稳定的区域。在接下来的30例患者中,我们评估了在前三组各10例患者中分别对区域1、区域2和区域3进行单一线状射频能量施加的效果。在最后120例患者中,仅在区域1重复施加射频能量。每个部位施加12至30W的射频能量或达到70摄氏度的温度,持续60至90秒。消融程序的终点是在前110例患者中中断并诱发不出常见心房扑动,在最后90例患者中的48例中实现额外的峡部阻滞。总体而言,191例(95%)患者在单次消融后心房扑动被中断且不能被诱发,9例(4.5%)患者未成功中断。平均射频施加次数为12±8次。平均随访24±9个月后,31例(15.5%)患者复发,其中26例患者成功接受了第二次或第三次消融且心房扑动未再复发。消融前未记录到的心房颤动在11例患者中被检测到。对第一组50例患者最终成功部位的回顾性分析显示,39%的患者位于区域1;36%的患者位于区域2;25%的患者位于区域3。在这些部位记录的心房电图显示,46%的患者为单峰模式,28%的患者为双峰模式,26%的患者为碎裂电图。当在多个部位放置射频消融线时,在区域1、区域2和区域3的成功率分别为70%、40%和10%。在最后一组120例患者中,119例患者手术成功:其中92%仅通过三尖瓣环峡部与下腔静脉之间的线状消融成功治疗,另外8%通过在冠状窦口附近的额外消融成功治疗。未观察到并发症。
射频导管消融心房扑动成功率高且安全。在下腔静脉口与三尖瓣之间的峡部施加射频能量成功率最高。然而,15.5%的患者因心房扑动复发需要多次消融才能成功。需要进一步随访以评估该手术的长期效果。