|
|
|
| Efficacy and Safety of Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation Under Pressure Monitoring and Pressure-Independent Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation in the Treatment of RVOT-VAs:a Comparative Study |
| LI Zuoling, PEI Xiaoling, LIN Yan, et al |
| Chengdu Third People's Hospital, Sichuan Chengdu 610000, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Objective: To compare the clinical effects and safety of radiofrequency catheter ablation under pressure monitoring and pressure-independent radiofrequency catheter ablation in the treatment of right ventricular outflow tract ventricular arrhythmias(RVOT-VAs). Methods: From June 2016 to March 2021, 309 patients with RVOT-VAs scheduled to be treated with radiofrequency ablation were selected and randomly divided into pressure group (n=167) and non-pressure group (n=142). Patients in the pressure group underwent high-power ThermoCool SmartTouch catheter radiofrequency ablation under pressure monitoring, while patients in the non-pressure group underwent NaviStar ThermoCool saline-irrigated catheter radiofrequency ablation. The operation indicators, success rate of ablation, postoperative complications and recurrence rate were compared between the two groups. Results: The operation time, ablation discharge time and X-ray exposure time of the pressure group were significantly shorter than those of the control group, and the number of invalid discharges was significantly smaller than that of the control group(P<0.05). The success rate of ablation after operation in the pressure group was higher than that in the non-pressure group (P<0.05). After operation, the total incidence of complications, recurrence rate and re-ablation rate in the pressure group were lower than those in the non-pressure group (P<0.05). Conclusion: Radiofrequency catheter ablation under pressure monitoring reveals good clinical effects in the treatment of RVOT-VAs. It can significantly shorten the operation time, ablation discharge time and X-ray exposure time, with a lower incidence of postoperative complications and a lower recurrence rate. The success rate and safety of long-term ablation are better than pressure-independent radiofrequency catheter ablation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 李文华,肖建强,徐波.十年131例特发性室性心律失常患者起源分布、心电图特征及射频导管消融术效果的回顾性研究[J].实用心脑肺血管病杂志,2020,28(2):74~80.
[2] Calkins H,Hindricks G,Cappato R,et al.2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation[J].Europace,2018,20(1):157~208.
[3] 中华医学会心电生理和起搏分会,中国医师协会心律学专业委员会.2020室性心律失常中国专家共识(2016共识升级版)[J].中华心律失常学杂志,2020,24(3):188~258.
[4] 赵子明,袁义强,尹晓盟,等.持续性心房颤动射频消融术后抗心律失常药物应用时程与预后的相关性分析[J].临床心血管病杂志,2019,35(1):65~69.
[5] 董潇男.压力感知导管技术治疗室性心律失常的研究进展[J].中国循环杂志,2018,33(9):914~916.
[6] Felix B,Konstantinos V,Antonio F,et al.In silico analysis of the relation between conventional and high-power short-duration RF ablation settings and resulting lesion metrics[J].Cardiovasc Electrophysiol,2020,31(6):1332~1339.
[7] Gulletta S,Vergara P,Gigli L,et al.Usefulness of electroanatomical mapping with contact force monitoring for accessory pathways ablation in pediatric population[J].Pediatr Cardiol,2019,40(4):713~718.
[8] 李波,尹红,黎明,等.Carto 3三维标测系统下零射线导管射频消融治疗心律失常的研究[J].重庆医学,2019,48(15):66~68.
[9] Ukita K,Kawamura A,Nakamura H,et al.Outcome of contact force-guided radiofrequency catheter ablation or second generation cryoballoon ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation:propensity score matched analysis[J].EurHeart,2020,41(2):97~915.
[10] Vassallo F,Cunha C,Serpa E,et al.Comparison of high-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation of atrial fibrillation using a contact force-sensing catheter and conventional technique:Initial results[J].CardiovasculElectrophysiol,2019,30(10):1877~1883.
[11] 蒋靖波,李金轶,文伟明,等.应用压力监测导管射频消融特发性右室流出道室性心律失常的临床研究[J].中国心脏起搏与心电生理杂志,2019,33(4):320~324. |
|
|
|
2021, Vol. 27 
