高龄心房颤动患者导管消融围术期不同抗凝方案的对比观察

目的：观察大于75岁的高龄心房颤动（房颤）患者围导管消融期三种抗凝方案的安全有效性。方法选取2011年7月到2013年12月行房颤导管消融治疗的高龄（＞75岁）房颤患者85例,术前常规华法林抗凝后经食管超声检查排除左心耳血栓,分为三组：传统抗凝组30例,消融前停用华法林,以低分子肝素桥接,术中用普通肝素抗凝,术后桥接低分子肝素联合华法林过渡到单用华法林;华法林持续使用组32例,围消融期正常使用华法林,术中使用普通肝素抗凝;新型口服抗凝药物组23例（达比加群组12例,利伐沙班组11例）,术前、术中同传统抗凝组,术后4h开始服用达比加群或利伐沙班抗凝。比较三组抗凝方案围术期到术后3个月的出血和栓塞事件发生率及其他并发症。结果传统抗凝组住院期间新发脑梗死1例,下肢血肿7例,假性动脉瘤1例,出院后3个月内内脏出血1例,小出血事件6例;华法林持续使用组院内下肢血肿4例,出院后3个月内小出血事件4例;新型口服抗凝药物院内下肢血肿2例,出院后无小出血事件。结论高龄房颤患者行导管消融治疗,总体安全有效。与传统抗凝治疗方案对比,持续使用华法林方案或采用新型口服抗凝药物能进一步降低出血并发症风险,并未增加血栓栓塞的风险。     

心房颤动导管消融围术期抗凝治疗研究进展

导管消融是心房颤动节律控制最为有效的一种治疗手段,围术期优化的抗凝治疗能够有效降低血栓栓塞和出血风险。目前指南推荐导管消融术前不间断抗凝治疗,术中普通肝素抗凝并维持活化凝血时间≥300 s,消融成功3个月后血栓高风险患者需长期抗凝治疗。然而,随着心房颤动导管消融围术期新型口服抗凝药物应用的增加,当前围术期抗凝治疗策略是否安全有效尚不明确。现对导管消融围术期不同阶段抗凝治疗最新研究进展进行综述。     

导管射频消融治疗高龄心房颤动患者的临床评价

目的评价高龄心房颤动(AF)患者接受导管射频消融治疗的有效性和安全性。方法纳入2008年1月至2014年8月在大连医科大学附属第一医院行房颤射频消融(RA)的877例患者,按年龄分为老年组(≥75岁)68例、年轻老年组(65～74岁)320例及对照组(65岁)489例。记录3组患者的临床资料,分析对比3组患者术中并发症、手术时间、X线曝光时间,比较术后血栓栓塞率、再住院率、二次手术率、术后抗心律失常药物服用率以及术后缓慢心室率比例。消融成功的定义:术后心电图或动态心电图未再出现持续时间超过30 s的房颤。采用SPSS 19.0统计软件,根据数据类型分别采用x~2检验、方差分析或LSD检验进行分析。应用Kaplan-Meier分析分别比较持续性AF和阵发性AF不同年龄患者的导管消融成功率。结果消融过程及安全性评价:3组患者术中并发症(5.9%vs 3.1%vs 2.9%)、手术时间[(196.65±34.45)vs(196.03±40.02)vs(194.36±37.89)min]、X射线曝光时间[(19.81±6.73)vs(19.44±6.45)vs(18.69±6.00)min],差异均无统计学意义。疗效评价:3组患者随访(21.45±6.31)个月,其术后血栓栓塞率(4.4%vs 3.4%vs 2.5%)、再住院率(23.5%vs 22.2%vs18.0%)及二次手术率(11.8%vs 12.8%vs 12.3%),差异无统计学意义。但是,老年组患者在术后长期使用抗心律失常药物的比例相对较低(13.2%vs 29.4%vs 20.0%,P=0.001),术后动态心电图出现缓慢心室率的比例较高(23.5%vs 15.6%vs12.3%,P=0.033)。Kaplan-Meier生存分析结果显示持续性AF和阵发性AF不同年龄患者的导管消融成功率差异无统计学意义。结论老年心房颤动患者的导管消融成功率和安全性与年轻患者相似。     

射频消融术治疗非瓣膜性心房颤动患者围术期的抗凝治疗

经导管射频消融治疗心房颤动的患者越来越多,为减少血栓的发生,围术期的抗凝治疗不容忽视。目前抗凝的主要药物为肝素、低分子肝素和华法林,具体应用方法国内外已逐渐规范,但国内术中肝素剂量偏小,缺乏激活凝血时间的指导,是否安全有待进一步研究。另外术后华法林应用时间、低分子肝素是否能替代华法林抗凝,需大规模临床试验证实。新型口服抗凝药是否能真正应用于临床,值得期待。     

导管射频消融治疗心房颤动

心房颤动发生与维持机制研究的深入使导管射频消融治疗房颤逐步进入临床。为提高导管消融治疗的成功率 ,仍有许多问题亟待解决。作者就此作一综述。     

心房颤动导管消融治疗

基于临床研究的充分证据,导管消融治疗在心房颤动（简称房颤）治疗相关指南中的推荐级别越来越高。文章从房颤导管消融的最新临床证据、消融策略和工具进展等方面加以论述,以期对临床医务人员和读者有所普及和启发。     

心房颤动的导管消融

<正>导管消融能够有效地使药物治疗无效的心房颤动(房颤)患者长期维持窦性心律,对减少包括严重症状、脑卒中、起搏器需求、心力衰竭等危害具有重要意义。导管消融的方法也因房颤类型和医院的不同而异,虽然仍存在争议,但是随着实践的深入和认识的提高,这些争议逐渐会被共识所替代。     

导管消融治疗老年患者心房颤动的进展

心房颤动（atrialfibrillation,Af）是最常见的心律失常之一．人群的一般发病率为0．4％。随着年龄的增加,Af的发病率也随之增加,60岁以下发病率仅1％,而80岁以上可达6～10％以上。2002年我国调查显示40～50岁的发病率为0．2％,50～60岁发病率为0．5％,60～70岁的发病率为1．3％,70～80岁的发病率为3．1％,而80岁及以上达7．5％嘲。随着人口老龄化趋势,Af的患者将越来越多。南于Af患者的血栓栓塞及心力衰竭的发生率明显升高,导致患者的住院率和医疗费用明显增加,并使生存率下降。     

导管消融心房颤动的新进展

心房颤动(房颤)的导管消融是唯一有望根治房颤的疗法,但目前主流的肺静脉大环隔离术主要适于阵发性房颤,持续性房颤的消融需要结合线性消融、碎裂电位消融,但难以实现透壁是治疗失败的主要原因。也有学者试图寻找新的机制理论来实现突破,转子学说应运而生但未得到检验。冷冻消融主要为不熟练的术者提供了简便的手段但只限于阵发性房颤。压力感知导管有望改善消融效果和安全性。分期或同期的内外科联合消融是值得推广的策略。     

心房颤动导管消融复发患者二次消融研究

目的心房颤动（房颤）导管消融治疗仍然存在一定的复发率,而其复发的特点目前仍然不清,本文对房颤消融复发患者二次消融的特点进行分析。方法共442例房颤消融治疗患者中,29例消融后复发的患者[男性19例,年龄（56±11）岁],本文患者复发时间〉6个月。对这些复发患者进行二次导管消融治疗。分析和对比初次与二次消融的电生理特点。结果29例房颤患者（20例为阵发性房颤,9例为持续性房颤）复发时间6—33（11．3±5．3）个月,所有患者初次消融后均服用3个月抗心律失常药。在复发的29例患者中,（1）3例初次消融术采用单纯靶肺静脉电隔离,二次消融发现1例出现非消融肺静脉触发灶,予以补充消融;另2例发现原靶肺静脉均有传导恢复,予以所有肺静脉经验性电隔离。（2）12例初次消融策略为所有肺静脉（48根）经验性电隔离,二次消融时发现所有患者存在不同程度的肺静脉传导恢复（36根）,8例再次所有肺静脉节段电隔离（其中1例发现上腔静脉起源予以针对性电隔离）;4例患者采用三维标测系统指导下同侧肺静脉环形电隔离。（3）12例患者初次消融策略为三维标测系统指导下同侧肺静脉环形电隔离,二次消融时重复进行环肺静脉电隔离。1例患者术中发现左心房局灶性房性心动过速（房速）并成功消融,2例患者术中出现左心房不典型心房扑动（房扑）成功消融。二次消融术后随访（15±10）个月,5例患者出现房颤复发（阵发性房颤1例,持续性房颤4例;成功率82．8％）,1例患者出现严重左肺静脉狭窄。结论对于房颤进行肺静脉消融电隔离治疗,其复发患者以肺静脉传导恢复为复发的主要原因。单纯进行靶肺静脉消融的部分患者,其他肺静脉的触发灶对于复发起着重要的作用。部分复发患者与非肺静脉起源的触发灶相关。复发的房颤患者,再次导管消融治疗可以达到较高的治疗成功率。     

逐级消融在非阵发性心房颤动中的临床应用

目的 总结三维标测系统(CARTO)指导下逐级消融策略治疗非阵发性心房颤动(房颤)的临床效果及可能机制.方法 40例非阵发性房颤患者接受逐级消融手术,第一步行环肺静脉前庭电学隔离术(PVAI),未复律者继续行线性消融,仍未复律者再继续行碎裂电位消融,直至复律或电复律.术后随访6～18个月.结果 40例患者PVAI后有11例转为窦性心律,线性消融后11例转为窦性心律,碎裂电位消融后6例转为窦性心律,其余行电复律.术后复发4例房颤,2例心房扑动,3例房性心动过速,以单纯PVAI后明显.结论 三维标测系统指导下采用逐级消融策略治疗非阵发性房颤是安全可靠的;单纯PVAI,成功率低,且易复发.     

Periprocedural anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation ablation

Background: Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) can increase risk of left atrial (LA) thrombi and stroke. Optimal periprocedural anticoagulation has not been determined.
Objective: We report the role of administering warfarin and aspirin without low molecular weight heparin in patients undergoing AF ablation.
Methods: A total of 207 patients underwent ablation for AF. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) guided transseptal puncture and ruled out clot in the LA. After first puncture, the sheath was flushed with heparin (5,000 Units/mL). After second puncture, a bolus of 80 units/kg of heparin was given, followed by an infusion to maintain activated clotting time (ACT) around 300–350 seconds. Warfarin was stopped and aspirin was started (325 mg/day) 3 days preprocedure. Warfarin was restarted on the day of the procedure. Both medications were continued for 6 weeks postablation. Warfarin was continued for 6 months in patients with prior history of persistent or recurrent AF. Thirty-seven patients who showed smoke in the LA on TEE were given low molecular weight heparin postprocedure until international normalized ratio (INR) was therapeutic.
Results: Thirty-two patients had persistent and 175 had paroxysmal AF; 87 were cardioverted during ablation. Two patients had transient ischemic attack (TIA) on the sixth and eighth days, respectively, following ablation, with complete recovery. Both had subtherapeutic INRs.
Conclusion: In patients without demonstrable clot or smoke in the LA, starting aspirin 3 days prior and warfarin immediately post-radiofrequency ablation, without low molecular weight heparin, with meticulous anticoagulation during the procedure, appears to be a safe mode of anticoagulation.     

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in elderly population

Background Although elderly patients have been included in published series of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF), clinical benefit and safety remain still less defined in this population. A retrospective analysis of the results of catheter ablation for AF in a large volume center focused on comparison of elderly patients with the rest of the patient cohort was conducted in this study. Methods Consecutive patients who underwent catheter ablation for AF between January 2001 and December 2016 were analysed. A total population of 3197 patients was dichotomized by the age of 70 years (394 elderly vs. 2803 younger subjects). Patients were followed in terms of arrhythmia status and sur?vival for a median period of 18 vs. 21 and 35 vs. 57 months, respectively. Results Elderly patients were more frequently females (49% vs. 29%, P < 0.0001), had a history of hypertension (79% vs. 57%, P < 0.0001), diabetes (16% vs. 11%, P < 0.01), stroke (9% vs. 6%, P < 0.01), coronary/peripheral artery disease (14% vs. 8%, P < 0.0001), and CHA2DS2-VASc score (3.1 ± 1.3 vs. 1.5 ± 1.2 s, P < 0.0001). Major complications were more frequent in elderly (5.3% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.03); however, this difference was driven by vascular complications (3.6% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.04). There were comparable rates of cerebrovascular (0.3 vs. 0.3%) or nonvascular complications (1.8 vs. 1.2%). Good arrhythmia control was inferior in elderly patients as compared with the rest of the cohort, both without and with antiarrhythmic drugs: 44.2% vs. 58.2% (P < 0.0001) and 78.2 vs. 83.2% (P < 0.01), respectively. Poor arrhythmia control was associated with relative risk of all-cause mortality of 2.7 (95% CI: 1.1–6.4) in elderly patients and 1.4 (95% CI: 0.9–2.0) in younger subjects. Conclusions Catheter abla?tion for AF in elderly patients is safe although somewhat less effective. Good arrhythmia control is associated with better survival, especially in elderly patients.     

老年心房颤动患者行单极和双极射频消融的疗效比较

目的 探讨65岁以上患者行单极与双极射频消融治疗心房颤动的临床疗效和影响因素. 方法 选取我院心外科2008年10月至2013年12月50例器质性心脏病合并心房颤动的老年患者,根据手术方式分为单极射频消融组20例(单极组)和双级射频消融组30例(双极组).术后随访3个月、6个月、12个月,记录心电图,观察窦性心律的转复情况.根据心电图结果,将术后12个月随访患者(43例)分为窦性与非窦性心律组,比较两组相关因素的差异. 结果 术后3个月、6个月、12个月窦性心律转复率单极组分别为73.7％(14/19)、66.7％(12/18)、61.1％(11/18),双极组分别为82.8％(24/29)、85.2％(23/27)、88.0％(22/25).两组术后12个月转复率比较,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).并发症单极组为55.0％(11例),双极组为26.7％(8例),两组比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).术前心房颤动病史、左心房内径是影响窦性心律转复率的因素(P＜0.05). 结论 双极射频消融治疗心房颤动安全性高、并发症少、成功率高.术前心房颤动病史长和左心房大的患者转复率低,且易复发.     

Long-term evaluation of atrial fibrillation ablation guided by noninducibility

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein (PV) isolation and linear lesions are effective in eliminating paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), but linear lesions probably are not required in all patients. Noninducibility of AF has been shown to be associated with freedom from arrhythmia in 87% of patients. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the role of noninducibility in guiding a stepwise approach tailored to the patient. METHODS: In 74 patients (age 53 +/- 8 years) with paroxysmal AF, PV isolation was performed during induced or spontaneous AF. If AF was inducible after PV isolation, one to two additional linear lesions were placed at the mitral isthmus and/or left atrial roof, with the endpoint of noninducibility of AF or atrial flutter. Inducibility (AF/atrial flutter, lasting > or = 10 minutes) was assessed using burst pacing at an output of 20 mA down to refractoriness from the coronary sinus and both atrial appendages. RESULTS: In 42 patients (57%), PV isolation restored sinus rhythm and rendered AF noninducible. In the 32 patients with persistent or inducible AF after PV isolation, a single linear lesion achieved noninducibility in 20, whereas two linear lesions were required in 12 and resulted in conversion to sinus rhythm and noninducibility in 10. Using this stepwise approach, a total of 69 patients (93%) were rendered noninducible. During follow-up of 18 +/- 4 months, 67 patients (91%) were free from arrhythmia without antiarrhythmic drugs. Repeat procedures were performed in 23 patients: repeat ablation was required to consolidate prior targets in 15 patients (20%), and "new" linear lesions, which were not predicted by inducibility during the index procedure, were required in 8 (11%). CONCLUSION: Noninducibility can be used as an endpoint for determining the subset of patients with paroxysmal AF who require additional linear lesions after PV isolation. This tailored approach is effective in 91% of patients while preventing delivery of unnecessary linear lesions.     

环肺静脉消融术治疗老年人心房颤动的安全性分析

目的 评价老年心房颤动(房颤)患者导管消融治疗的安全性.方法 连续入选307例行环肺静脉线性消融治疗的房颤患者.比较老年组与中青年组导管消融治疗的疗效及安全性.结果 老年组的房颤病史长于中青年组,分别为(8.0±7.5)年和(6.1±5.7)年(P＜0.05);并存器质性心脏病的比例高,分别为37.2%和23.9%(P＜0.05).术后随访(13.5±6.3)个月,79例(25.7%)患者复发房性心律失常,两组复发率(30.9%和23.5%)比较,差异无统计学意义.28例(9.1%)患者出现操作相关并发症,老年组并发症发生率高于中青年组,分别为14.9%和6.6%(P＜0.05),两组间严重并发症发生率(3.2%和1.9%)比较,差异无统计学意义.结论 导管消融治疗是老年房颤患者一项可供选择的治疗措施.     

老年心房颤动患者射频消融治疗的临床特征及疗效

目的:了解接受射频消融治疗的老年心房颤动患者的临床特征及疗效。方法:本研究入选2010年6月至2011年6月,在我院接受导管消融治疗的668例心房颤动患者,按年龄分为:老年心房颤动组(≥60岁,308例)和非老年心房颤动组(<60岁,360例)。消融终点包括:完成所有预设的消融径线;全部肺静脉均达电隔离;阴性诱发结果。随访成功的定义为:未服用抗心律失常药物及无任何房性心律失常发作至少3个月以上。结果:①老年心房颤动患者的临床特征:女性心房颤动患者、合并高血压比例患者和CHADS2评分≥2的患者所占的比例,显著高于非老年心房颤动组(P<0.001);②导管消融过程及安全性,首次手术成功率和严重并发症,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);③术后随访:随访时间为术后6～12个月。非老年组和老年组的心房颤动再次消融患者比例和总消融成功率,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:尽管老年心房颤动患者临床合并症较多,但导管消融成功率及术后合并症与非老年心房颤动患者无差异。因此导管射频消融对于老年心房颤动患者也是安全有效的治疗方法。