Strickberger S A, Man K C, Daoud E G, Goyal R, Brinkman K, Hasse C, Bogun F, Knight B P, Weiss R, Bahu M, Morady F
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor 48109-0022, USA.
Circulation. 1997 Sep 2;96(5):1525-31. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.96.5.1525.
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy is integral to current therapy for ventricular tachycardia. Patients with an ICD frequently require concomitant antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Despite this, some patients still receive frequent ICD therapies for ventricular tachycardia. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective study was to determine the utility of ablation of ventricular tachycardia in patients with an ICD who experience frequent ICD therapies.
Twenty-one consecutive patients with frequent ICD therapies despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy were the subjects of this study. The mean age was 69+/-6 years, and 17 were men. The mean ejection fraction was 0.22+/-0.08, and all patients had coronary artery disease. During the 36+/-51 days (range, 4 days to 7 months) preceding the ablation procedures, the patients received 34+/-55 ICD therapies for the clinical ventricular tachycardia, or a mean of 25+/-88 ICD therapies per month. The patients underwent radiofrequency ablation of the presumed clinical ventricular tachycardia by inducing the tachycardia and mapping according to endocardial activation, continuous electrical activity, pace mapping, concealed entrainment, or mid-diastolic potentials. Ablation of the clinical arrhythmia was successful in 76% of patients during 1.4+/-0.6 (range, 1 to 3) ablation procedures and required 12.5+/-9.2 applications of energy. During 11.8+/-10.0 months of follow-up, the frequency of ICD therapies per month decreased from 60+/-80 before successful ablation to 0.1+/-0.3 ICD therapies per month after ablation (P=.01). A quality-of-life assessment demonstrated a significant improvement after successful (P=.02) but not unsuccessful ablation (P=.9).
Radiofrequency ablation of ventricular tachycardia as adjuvant therapy in patients with coronary artery disease and an ICD has a reasonable success rate, significantly reduces ICD therapies, and appears to be associated with an improved quality of life.
植入式心脏转复除颤器(ICD)治疗是目前室性心动过速治疗的重要组成部分。ICD患者常需要同时进行抗心律失常药物治疗。尽管如此,一些患者仍频繁接受ICD治疗以应对室性心动过速。因此,这项前瞻性研究的目的是确定对于频繁接受ICD治疗的ICD患者,室性心动过速消融术的效用。
本研究的对象为21例尽管接受了抗心律失常药物治疗仍频繁接受ICD治疗的连续患者。平均年龄为69±6岁,其中17例为男性。平均射血分数为0.22±0.08,所有患者均患有冠状动脉疾病。在消融手术前的36±51天(范围为4天至7个月)内,患者因临床室性心动过速接受了34±55次ICD治疗,平均每月接受25±88次ICD治疗。患者通过诱发心动过速并根据心内膜激动、连续电活动、起搏标测、隐匿性拖带或舒张中期电位进行标测,对推测的临床室性心动过速进行射频消融。在1.4±0.6次(范围为1至3次)消融手术中,76%的患者临床心律失常消融成功,消融需要12.5±9.2次能量应用。在11.8±10.0个月的随访期间,每月ICD治疗的频率从成功消融前的60±80次降至消融后的每月0.1±0.3次(P = 0.01)。生活质量评估显示,成功消融后有显著改善(P = 0.02),但未成功消融则无改善(P = 0.9)。
对于患有冠状动脉疾病且植入ICD的患者,室性心动过速射频消融作为辅助治疗具有合理的成功率,可显著减少ICD治疗次数,且似乎与生活质量改善相关。