Carto系统标测和指导射频消融快速心律失常

目的　评价Carto系统电解剖标测和指导射频消融治疗快速心律失常应用价值。方法　选择各种快速心律失常患者共 5 6例 ,其中室上性心动过速 (室上速 ) 4 9例 [房室结双径路 8例 ,房性心动过速 (房速 ) 12例 ,心房扑动 (房扑 ) 10例 ,左、右房室旁道 19例 ],室性心动过速 (室速 ) 7例 ,在心动过速或窦性心律时应用Carto系统标测 ,从其电解剖传导图中判断心律失常起源和发生机制 ,并指导射频消融。结果　 5 3例消融成功 ,消融成功率 94 6 %。 1例右侧游离壁旁道、1例右房房速和 1例不典型房扑消融不成功。房室结双径路 8例。左、右房室旁道 19例。 12例房速中左房房速 4例 ,右房房速 8例。 7例典型房扑 ,3例不典型房扑。特发性右室流出道室速 3例 ,特发性左室室速 3例 ,心肌梗死后室速 1例。手术时间为 (12 8± 5 9)min ,曝光时间为 (14± 12 )min。 1例穿剌左锁骨下静脉时发生气胸并发症。随访 1～ 14个月 ,1例左房房速复发 ,经Carto系统再次标测和消融成功。结论　Carto系统可安全有效应用于各种快速心律失常的标测和消融 ,减少X线曝光时间。它将心内电图与三维解剖结构联系起来 ,判断不同心律失常机制及起源部位 ,对指导消融有较大价值。利用其定位记忆功能 ,可避免损伤传导系统及进行补充放电 ,减少并     

起源于肺静脉的阵发性房颤的电生理特点及射频消融治疗

目的探讨环状电极(Lasso电极)标测诱发阵发性房颤的肺静脉电位的电生理特点并对射频消融靶点进行评介。方法16例阵发性房颤者在Lasso电极标测寻找优势肺静脉电位(PVP),温控消融放电。结果起源于肺静脉的局灶性房颤其电生理特征包括:①异位激动灶主要分布于两上肺静脉。②肺静脉内可观察到从肺静脉内至心房传导阻滞。消融成功的靶点与体表心电图P′波提前(74±33)ms。成功隔离38条肺静脉:其中左上肺静脉16条,右上肺静脉12条。术程(186.7±63.8)min,X线曝光时间(51.5±15.0)min。术后随访1～12个月,11例(68.7%)无需药物而维持窦性心律。结论阵发性房颤异位起源点大多数位于左房肺静脉,起源于肺静脉的局灶性房颤有其特殊的电生理表现。     

射频导管消融电学隔离心脏大静脉治疗阵发性心房颤动的临床应用

目的评价射频导管消融电学隔离心脏大静脉预防阵发性心房颤动(房颤)发作的疗效。方法83例患者,男性58例、女性25例,年龄15～76平均(605±185)岁,有阵发性房颤病史2～15年,曾服数种抗心律失常药物疗效不佳。41例患者合并有高血压病,所有患者均无明显器质性心脏病改变。常规行心脏大静脉造影,测量靶静脉直径,将10极肺静脉环状标测导管(Lasso导管)放置在靶静脉开口内05cm处,以Lasso导管为指导,把温控大头电极导管放置于靶静脉开口处行电学隔离。结果83例患者共电学隔离大静脉343条。包括左上肺静脉(LSPV)83条,右上肺静脉(RSPV)83条,左下肺静脉(LIPV)82条,右下肺静脉(RIPV)42条,上腔静脉(SVC)53条,其中2例LSPV与LIPV共同开口。每条肺静脉行1～4段消融(平均每条消融25段),即刻电学隔离成功大静脉337条。随访2～31个月,其中50例停服抗心律失常药物后无房颤发生,13例患者房颤发作明显减少,20例患者房颤发作消融前后无明显变化。并发症有2例术中出现左侧大量胸腔积血,1例心肺复苏5天后出现脑死亡。发现肺静脉狭窄21例,其中轻度狭窄15例,重度狭窄6例,无肺静脉闭塞。结论(1)成功的心脏大静脉电学隔离治疗阵发性房颤的总有效率达到75%左右;(2)由于很难确定靶肺静脉,成功电学隔离各心脏大静脉有可能提高治愈率;(3)此     

导管射频消融治疗持续性心房颤动的体会

目的研究持续性心房颤动(房颤)导管射频消融最佳手术方式及复发心律失常的处理策略。方法2005年3月~2007年8月共40例持续性房颤患者接受导管射频消融治疗,三维电解剖标测系统指导下行环同侧肺静脉左心房线性消融;2005年的12例患者部分附加左心房峡部、右心房峡部、左心房顶部线性消融;2006年的12例患者常规进行左心房峡部、右心房峡部射频消融,部分患者附加碎裂电位、左心耳或根据术中的房性心律失常附加其他部位射频消融;2007年的16例患者则在上述基础上进行冠状窦左心房心内膜面射频消融。结果2005年复发8例(66.7%),2006年复发3例(25.0%),2007年复发4例(25.0%)。复发的患者中8例接受第二次导管射频消融术,其中5例维持窦性心律。平均随访(17.6±10.4)个月,总治疗成功率82.5%。结论持续性房颤患者在以肺静脉口为核心的导管射频消融前提下,适当改进导管射频消融策略,可以显著提高成功率。     

经右锁骨下静脉途径导管射频消融三尖瓣环下的室性心律失常

目的探讨经右锁骨下静脉途径结合应用长鞘(SR0)导管射频消融三尖瓣环下起源的室性心律失常有效性及安全性。方法 8例患者,根据心电图和/或动态心电图诊断为三尖瓣环附近起源室性早搏(PVC)/室性心动过速(VT),均接受心脏电生理检查及射频消融治疗。术前曾经或术中采取常规下腔静脉途径消融失败后,改经右锁骨下静脉途径并辅用长鞘SR0进行标测与消融。消融成功后,结合靶点位置分析心电图及消融结果。结果 8例消融均获成功。根据消融导管的X线影像特征、电解剖证实其起源于三尖瓣环下6～9点。12导联体表心电图的PVC/VT的QRS波均呈左束支传导阻滞伴电轴左偏图形,Ⅰ、aVL导联主波向上,Ⅱ、Ⅲ、aVF导联主波向下,2例肢体导联见切迹,QRS波时限174.75±13.44 ms,消融靶点局部V波较体表心电图QRS波提早27.5±3.16 ms。8例成功消融靶点图只见V波,6例有峰电位。随访2～12个月,1例PVC复发。结论在长鞘辅助下,经右锁骨下静脉途径能够安全、有效地消融治疗三尖瓣环下PVC/VT,是经股静脉途径消融失败的有效补充。     

风湿性心脏病瓣膜置换术后心房颤动的导管消融病例总结

目的：评价风湿性心脏病瓣膜置换术后心房颤动（房颤）消融的效果和安全性。方法入选2008年至2013年在广东省人民医院心内科接受房颤导管消融治疗的风湿性心脏病瓣膜置换术患者,分析其临床特征、消融策略及消融成功率。结果共纳入23例患者,男8例,女15例,平均年龄（51.0＆#177;9.2）岁。单纯二尖瓣置换术患者13例（56.5%）,二尖瓣、主动脉瓣双瓣置换术10例（43.5%）,其中5例同时进行三尖瓣置换或整形术。外科术后阵发性房颤患者14例（60.9%）,非阵发性房颤9例（39.1%）;这些患者在外科术前心律情况为9例窦性心律,4例阵发性房颤,10例非阵发性房颤。导管消融距离外科手术时间为（6.9＆#177;5.8）年,外科术后发生房颤病程（3.1＆#177;3.2）年,左、右心房内径分别为（44.1＆#177;5.9）mm、（48.1＆#177;9.0）mm,左心室射血分数64.0%＆#177;8.3%。平均消融手术时间（156.8＆#177;46.6）min,X线曝光时间（27.3＆#177;11.2）min。随访（29.7＆#177;21.2）个月,其中4例（17.4%）患者接受再次消融术;14例（60.9%）维持窦性心律（6例服用胺碘酮）,1例死亡,2例失访,6例复发（包括2例持续性房颤,1例阵发性房颤,2例偶发性心房扑动,1例阵发性房性心动过速）。结论风湿性心脏病瓣膜置换术后房颤导管消融有效、安全,步进式导管消融策略可能较为合适。     

Ensite非接触标测系统在室性心律失常患者射频消融中的应用

目的探讨Ensite系统标测室性心律失常的方法,并评价其指导射频消融的有效性和安全性。方法入选症状性室性期前收缩(室早)或室性心动过速(室速)患者98例,年龄(42±16)岁,其中男43例,女55例。经外周血管进非接触多极球囊导管至右心室或左心室三维重建心腔。心室激动时根据虚拟单极电位的等电位图,结合起搏和激动标测对起源点和突破口及优势传导通道进行消融。结果消融即时成功率95%(93/98)。起源于右心室流出道占96种,间隔部和游离壁各82、14种,起源于其他不典型部位21种,三尖瓣环8种。起源后传导突破呈快反应点爆发方式占78%(91/117),采用点消融覆盖相近的起源点和突破口;呈慢反应突破方式占22%(26/117),采用线性或片状消融策略。随访(6±3)个月,3例复发,1例经再次消融成功。结论 Ensite心内非接触式标测系统用于室性心律失常的三维标测有效安全。室速或室早自最早起源点后经优势传导通道向突破口传导有两种传导方式。     

环肺静脉射频消融治疗慢性心房颤动

4 背景 1994年Haisaguerre等首先报道了经导管消融治疗心房颤动。近几年来，随着对心房颤动发生和维持机制研究的深入，各种各样的心房颤动消融策略不断涌现出来并应用于临床，导管消融的适应证也从阵发性心房颤动扩展到所有类型的心房颤动。三维标测系统指导下的环肺静脉消融术（circumferential pulmonary-vein ablation，CPVA）是目前治疗持续性心房颤动的最常用术式，取得了较好的疗效。但患者术后常需要接受短期的抗心律失常药物治疗和一次或多次的电复律以恢复窦性心律，而且有无症状性心房颤动复发存在。这些混杂的因素可能会使手术疗效被高估。     

无左心房和肺静脉三维重建的阵发性心房颤动导管消融术

Objective To investigate the differences between modeling and non-modeling left atrium in Carto XP system guided catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Methods Thirty-one cases of par-oxysmal atrial fibrillation treated by the same electrophysiologist with guidance of Carto XP during Jan to Dec in 2008 were enrolled. Catheter ablation was accomplished without left atrium and pulmonary veins modeling in 17 patients (non-modeling group) and with left atrium modeling in 14 patients (modeling group). The detailed ablation method was based on circumferential pulmonary veins isolation (CPVI). And linear ablation of tricus-pid valvular isthmus was selectively proceeded individually. The ablation endpoint was set to complete isolation of pulmonary vein potential from left atrium and no continuous fast atrial arrhythmia including atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter and atrial tachycardia could be induced. Comparisons for each step during procedure and the fol-low-up outcomes had been done. Results The male: female ratio of the 2 groups were 10:4 and 11 : 6 (P >0.05). The average age were (54.64 ± 15.58) and (59.41 ± 10.59) (P >0.05) ,the diseased courses were (5.05 ±10.4) years and (7.34±7.74)years(P >0.05),the left atrial sizes were (35.29±4.73) mm and (36.47 ±6.15)mm (P > 0.05), the total procedure time was (107.23±28.92) rain and (93.47 ±26.09) win (P>0.05). The X-ray exposure time was (21.09 ±6.49)min (modeling group) and (14.16±5.35)min (non-modeling group,P < 0.05). The CPVI time of fight pulmonary veins was (27.29±18.53) rain (model-ing group) and 18.00 ±4.51 min (non-modeling group, P < 0.05). The CPVI time of left pulmonary veins was (28.14 ±9.26) rain (modeling group) and (23.94±7.10) rain (non-modeling group, P < 0.05). The successful rates was 85.7% (modeling group) and 82.4% (non-modeling group, P > 0.05) over follow-up for 2 to 13 months. Conclusion Carto system guided catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation without modeling of left atrium and pulmonary veins could take less time in X-ray exposure and ablation steps, compa-ring with left atrium modeling one.     

CartoXP Guided Catheter Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Without Three-dimensional Modeling of Left Atrium and Pulmonary Veins

Objectives This study was to investigate the differences between modeling and non-modeling left atrium （LA） in CartoXP system guided catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation （PAF）. Methods From Jan to Dec in 2008 total 31 cases with PAF were enrolled. All were treated by the same electrophysiologist with CartoXP guidance. Catheter ablation was accomplished without left atrium and pulmonary veins modeling in 17 patients （non-modeling group） and with left atrium modeling in 14 patients （modeling group）. The detailed ablation method was based on circumferential pulmonary veins isolation （CPVI）. And linear ablation of tricuspid valvular isthmus was performed individually. The ablation endpoint was a complete isolation of pulmonary vein potential from left atrium and no further induced continuous fast atrial arrhythmia including atrial fibrillation （AF）, atrial flutter （AFL） and atrial tachycardia （AT）. Each step for the procedures and the follow-up outcomes were compared correspondingly. Results The total procedure time was 107.23 ± 28.92 min in modeling group vs 93.47 ±26.09 min in non-modeling group （ P 〉 0.05 ）. The X-ray exposure time was significantly longer in modeling group （21.09 ±6. 49 rain） than in non-modeling group （14. 16 ± 5.35 min）. The CPVI times of right pulmonary veins and left pulmonary veins were 28. 14 ± 9. 26 min was 27.29 ± 18.53 min in modeling group respectively, vs 18.00 ±4. 51 min and 23.94 ± 7. 10 min in non-modeling group respectively, （P 〈 0. 05 ）. There is no significant difference between modeling group （85.7%） and non-modeling group （82.4%） over follow-up period of 2 to 13 months. Confusions CartoXP system guided catheter ablation of PAF without modeling of left atrium and pulmonary veins took less time in X-ray exposure and ablation steps, comparing with left atrium modeling procedure.