Stabile G, De Simone A, Turco P, Senatore G, Coltorti F, Marrazzo N, Solimene F, Chiariello M
Laboratory of Electrophysiology, Casa di Cura San Michele, Maddaloni, CE, Italy.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1998 Nov;21(11 Pt 2):2506-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1998.tb01209.x.
The aim of this study was to analyze prospectively the feasibility and safety of using 2 Fr versus 6 Fr standard electrode catheters for diagnostic electrophysiological study.
Two hundred and five consecutive patients were randomized to receive the 6 Fr approach (3 quadripolar, 6 Fr, electrode catheters inserted through the left or right femoral vein and placed in the high right atrium, right ventricular apex, and His bundle area) or the 2 Fr approach (3 quadripolar, 2 Fr, electrode catheters inserted through a single, 7 Fr, triple lumen, guiding catheter and positioned at the same sites as the 6 Fr approach).
Introduction time was shorter in the 2 Fr group (133.3 +/- 65 s, range 87-669 s) than in the 6 Fr group (242.8 +/- 91.8 s, range 168-1024 s, P < 0.001). The overall fluoroscopy time was longer in the 2 Fr group (141.2 +/- 40.1 s, range 78-312 s) than in the 6 Fr group (126.4 +/- 39.7 s, range 58-341 s, P = 0.009). However in the last 100 patients there was no more difference between the two groups (137.6 +/- 28.2 s vs 128.4 +/- 23.2 s, P = 0.07). There was no significant difference between 2 Fr and 6 Fr groups in the mean atrial (5.9 +/- 2.2 mV, range 2.2-11.3 mV, vs 6.1 +/- 2.3 mV, range 2.4-12.4 mV, P = 0.57) and ventricular (5.6 +/- 2.1 mV, range 1.9-9.7 mV, vs 5.7 +/- 2.2 mV, range 2.3-10.5 mV, P = 0.66) activation potential amplitudes recorded during sinus rhythm, or in the rate of stable His bundle potential recording (P = 0.3), and catheter dislodgment (P = 0.54). The overall number of complications was significantly higher in the 6 Fr group than in the 2 Fr group (29 vs 5, P = 0.001), as well as the number of entry site related complications (3 vs 12, P = 0.02) and catheter manipulation related complications (2 vs 17, P < 0.001).
The results of this study show that the use of 2 Fr electrode catheters reduces the rates of entry site and catheter manipulation related complications during EPS. Despite their small size, these catheters allow quick and precise positioning of the electrode.
本研究的目的是前瞻性分析使用2F与6F标准电极导管进行诊断性电生理研究的可行性和安全性。
205例连续患者被随机分配接受6F方法(3根四极、6F电极导管经左或右股静脉插入并置于高位右心房、右心室尖部和希氏束区域)或2F方法(3根四极、2F电极导管经一根7F三腔引导导管插入并置于与6F方法相同的部位)。
2F组的导入时间(133.3±65秒,范围87 - 669秒)短于6F组(242.8±91.8秒,范围168 - 1024秒,P < 0.001)。2F组的总透视时间(141.2±40.1秒,范围78 - 312秒)长于6F组(126.4±39.7秒,范围58 - 341秒,P = 0.009)。然而,在最后100例患者中,两组之间不再有差异(137.6±28.2秒对128.4±23.2秒,P = 0.07)。2F组和6F组在窦性心律期间记录的平均心房(5.9±2.2毫伏,范围2.2 - 11.3毫伏,对6.1±2.3毫伏,范围2.4 - 12.4毫伏,P = 0.57)和心室(5.6±2.1毫伏,范围1.9 - 9.7毫伏,对5.7±2.2毫伏,范围2.3 - 10.5毫伏,P = 0.66)激活电位幅度、稳定希氏束电位记录率(P = 0.3)以及导管移位(P = 0.54)方面无显著差异。6F组的总体并发症数量显著高于2F组(29例对5例,P = 0.001),入口部位相关并发症数量(3例对12例,P = 0.02)和导管操作相关并发症数量(2例对17例,P < 0.001)也是如此。
本研究结果表明,使用2F电极导管可降低电生理检查期间入口部位和导管操作相关并发症的发生率。尽管这些导管尺寸小,但它们能实现电极的快速精确定位。