房室结折返性心动过速射频消融术后复发机制探讨

目的: 探讨房室结折返性心动过速射频消融术后复发原因。方法: 对356 例房室结折返性心动过速患者射频消融术后进行随访,回顾性分析其电生理资料。结果: 356例中10例复发,复发率2.8%,320例患者射频术后无心房回波,无跳跃现象,一直未复发;术后有心房回波无跳跃现象未诱发出室上速17例,其中3例复发;术后有跳跃及心房回波未诱发出室上速11例,其中5例复发;术后有跳跃无心房回波未诱发出室上速8例,2例复发。10例复发患者,第2次射频消融术后房室结不应期均较第1次术后延长,且与术前快径不应期差值明显减小,第2次射频消融术后随访至今（>9个月）,无1例复发。结论: 慢径残存是房室结折返性心动过速射频消融术后复发的主要原因。     

Conversion of typical to "atypical" atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia after radiofrequency catheter modification of the atrioventricular junction.

Typical atrioventricular (AV) nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT) is characterized by anterograde activation over a slowly conducting pathway and by retrograde activation through a rapidly conducting pathway. Preliminary reports suggest that radiofrequency catheter modification can eliminate typical AVNRT while preserving anterograde conduction. Radiofrequency catheter modification was used to treat 88 patients with typical AVNRT. After baseline electrophysiologic evaluation, the ablation catheter was positioned proximal and superior to the site of maximal His deflection. Radiofrequency energy was applied until there was significant attenuation of retrograde conduction, and elimination of AVNRT inducibility. Eighty-one patients were successfully treated and form the basis of this report. A new paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia with RP greater than PR interval was induced at electrophysiologic testing after successful ablation in 9 patients (11%). Mean atrial-His activation time was 140 +/- 31 ms, and the ventriculoatrial activation time was 170 +/- 46 ms. This arrhythmia was induced only with ventricular pacing during isoproterenol infusion and appeared to be mediated by AV nodal reentry. New retrograde dual AV nodal physiology after modification was more frequent in patients with atypical tachycardia than in those without (4 of 9 vs 2 of 72; p less than 0.0001). Although none of the patients were treated, only 1 of 9 had an episode of spontaneous atypical tachycardia during a mean follow-up of 12 months. Results of this study confirm that typical AVNRT can be rendered noninducible without the complete destruction of reentrant pathways. Because induction of "atypical" AVNRT was not predictive of spontaneous arrhythmia recurrence, it should not be an indication for additional ablation sessions or long-term drug therapy.     

快慢型房室结折返性心动过速的电生理机制和经导管射频消融

目的探讨快慢型房室结折返性心动过速(AVNRT)的电生理机制和经导管射频消融。方法快慢型AVNRT消融患者42例。消融方法为在心室起搏或心动过速时标测最早逆传慢径心房激动部位,然后在窦性心律下或心动过速时消融。消融成功的标准为消除逆传慢径、1:1前传慢径及不能诱发任何类型AVNRT。结果所有42例均消融成功。逆传慢径消融成功部位在三尖瓣环和冠状静脉窦(CS)口之间(传统慢径区域)36例(86%),其最早逆传心房激动也位于上述区域;逆传慢径在CS近端或/和二尖瓣环心房侧消融成功6例(14%),其最早逆传心房激动多位于CS近端1～3cm处。结论多数快慢型AVNRT可在传统慢径区域(房室结右侧后延伸)消融成功,但部分病例需要在CS近端和/或二尖瓣环房侧(左侧后延伸)消融成功。     

慢慢型房室结折返性心动过速的电生理机制和射频导管消融治疗

目的　探讨慢慢型房室结折返性心动过速 (AVNRT)的电生理机制和不同射频导管消融方法的治疗效果。方法　812例AVNRT患者分为两组,第 1组 500例,比较慢慢型中前传慢径和逆传慢径的成功消融部位的异同、比较在慢慢型和快慢型中选择性地消融逆传慢径部位的异同。第 2组312例,在设想慢慢型AVNRT折返机制的基础上,前瞻性地对慢慢型仅选择性消融前传慢径而不消融逆传慢径。结果　第 1组 59例慢慢型AVNRT的前传和逆传慢径的传导时间和成功消融的部位明显不同,逆传慢径多在冠状静脉窦(CS)窦口内或CS近端消融成功,而前传慢径多在三尖瓣环和CS窦口之间消融成功;慢慢型与快慢型的逆传慢径有明显不同的传导时间、递减特性和解剖分布。在第 2组前瞻性地仅消融前传慢径治疗 22例慢慢型组中,在三尖瓣环和CS窦口之间成功消融前传慢径并治愈AVN RT后, 21例逆传慢径功能不变,其逆传慢径最早心房插入点部位与前传慢径消融部位不同。所有 812例AVNRT均消融成功,第 1组在 3年以上的随访中, 387例慢快型复发 1例 (0 3% ), 59例慢慢型复发6例(10% ), 54例快慢型无复发。第 2组 312例 3 ~48 ( 23±12 )个月的随访中,慢快型复发 2例(0 5% ),慢慢型和快慢型无复发。结论　(1)慢慢型AVNRT应用电生理特性和解剖分布不同的两条慢径形     

中位法射频消蚀慢径路治疗房室结折返性心动过速

导管射频消蚀术（ＲＦＣＡ）治疗房室结折返性心动过速４３例，采用＂中位法＂选择性阻断慢径路，该技术的关键是：①在Ｘ线右前斜位３０度下，将消蚀电极置于冠状窦口和希氏束连线的中点附近；②消蚀电极双极记录到小Ａ大Ｖ波；③放电时有交界性心律（包括快交界律、慢交界律、交界性早搏）；④以间断放电和时间递增的方法控制消蚀过程；⑤消蚀终点为放电总累积时间达６０～９０秒，重复电生理检查证实慢径阻断或心动过速不能诱发。经１～３个部位的消蚀彻底阻断慢道３６例，遗留慢径传导７例（有心房回波２例）。除１例术后第二天发生一过性Ⅲ°ＡＶＢ，二周恢复正常外，余无并发症发生，随访３～２４个月（平均１４±６），停用任何抗心律失常药，无心动过速发作。消蚀成功率１００％。认为“中位法”是消蚀房室结慢径路治疗房室结折返性心动过速的安全、简便和有效的方法，部分病例保留慢传导并不增加复发率。     

Atrial tachycardia with slow pathway conduction mimicking typical atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia.

A 68-year-old woman with palpitations underwent electrophysiologic testing. During burst atrial pacing the PR interval exceeded the RR interval and induced a supraventricular tachycardia consistent with a typical AV nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT). Radiofrequency ablation of the slow pathway during the tachycardia immediately produced 2 : 1 AV conduction. After slow AV nodal pathway ablation an atrial tachycardia (AT) remained inducible with the earliest atrial activation around the HB region. Radiofrequency ablation at the site of earliest atrial activation interrupted the AT without AV block. AT originating from the HB region with slow pathway conduction may mimic typical AVNRT.     

射频消融治疗儿童房室结折返性心动过速的体会

目的　讨论射频消融术 (RFCA)治疗儿童房室经折返性心动过速的体会。方法　 1992年 3月至 2 0 0 1年 12月 ,应用射频消融术 (RFCA)治疗儿童房室结折返性心动过速共 5 2例 ,男 3 0例 ,女 2 2例 ,平均年龄 (8 4± 3 2 )岁 (3 5～15岁 )。全部病例均行食道心房调搏术及心内电生理检查 ,选择消融慢径路。结果　食道心房调搏术S2 R跳跃延长(63 1± 10 3 )ms(5 0～ 110ms) ,心内电生理检查AH跳跃延长 (5 2 4± 15 8)ms(3 0～ 10 5ms)。总消融成功率 97 6% ,输出功率 (18 2± 3 2 )W ,放电次数 (12 1± 4 2 )次 ,手术时间(1 5± 0 5 )h ,X线曝光时间 (18 5± 5 4)min。结论　射频消融术治疗儿童房室结折返性心动过速是安全、有效的 ,但应严格掌握适应证     

房室结折返性心动过速慢径消融终点与复发的关系

目的:观察房室结折返性心动过速(AVNRT)的慢径消融终点与复发的联系。方法:534个慢-快型AVNRT患者行慢径消融治疗,观察A型终点(彻底消融慢径,房室结无跳无折)和B型终点(残留慢径有或无1～3心房回波,不能诱发AVNRT)与AVNRT复发的联系及对房室结传导的影响。结果:①A型复发5例(1.2%),B型复发11例(9.4%),差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。②A型终点房室结前传文氏周期(Wen-AVN)、快径前传有效不应期和房室结双径路(DAVNP)的跳跃增值缩短,B型快径前传有效不应期和房室结双径路的跳跃增值缩短,A型有效不应期的缩短明显大于B型。结论:A型终点的复发率明显低于B型终点;只要改变房室传导功能,不能诱发心动过速,B型终点仍然是有效、可靠的消融终点。     

房室结折返性心动过速慢径消融时加速性结区心律出现的临床意义

目的　揭示在房室结折返性心动过速 (AVNRT)的选择性慢径消融时出现的加速性结区心律与消融靶点以及心动过速复发之间的关系 ,并为临床提供参考。方法　将 2 4 7例AVNRT病人按选择性慢径消融后心动过速的复发与否可将病人分为组 1(消融成功组 ,共 2 12例 )和组 2 (心动过速复发组 ,共 35例 )。将在慢径消融过程中出现的结区反应按其特点分为Ⅰ型 (放电后出现持续的结区反应 ,停止放电后即刻或间隔数秒恢复窦性心律 )和Ⅱ型 (放电后出现间歇性结区反应即窦性心律与结区心律交替出现 ,停止放电后可迅速恢复窦性心律 )。结果　组 1的结区反应较好 ,多为Ⅱ型表现 ;而组 2则多无结区反应 ,且其结区反应多呈Ⅰ型。另外 ,复发组中其结区反应出现的时间也相对较晚 [(3 2± 1 8)比 (5 7± 2 5 ) ,P <0 0 5 ]。而在成功消融组中其结区反应出现较早 ,且放电时结区心律与窦性心律交替出现 ,停止放电后窦律恢复较快 ,继续巩固放电时结区心律持续的时间逐渐缩短直至完全消失。而放电时若无结区反应 ,则消融的成功率并不高 (仅为 38% )。结论　在AVNRT病人的慢径消融过程中加速性结区心律尤其是Ⅱ型结区心律的出现 ,对于慢径的靶点选择具有重要的指导意义。Ⅱ型结区反应可以作为选择性慢径消融的有效靶点标志     

Cryoablation versus radiofrequency ablation of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia

Background

Ablation of the slow pathway is an established cure for atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT). Periprocedural damage to the conduction system is a major concern during AVNRT ablation, and cryoablation (CRYO) has been suggested to improve the procedural safety compared to standard radiofrequency (RF) ablation, without reducing the procedural success.

Objective

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing CRYO with RF ablation of AVNRT.

Methods

We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, the BioMed Central, EMBASE, CardioSource, clinicaltrials.gov, and ISI Web of Science (January 1980 to July 2013). No language restriction was applied. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts to identify studies that compared the procedural outcomes of AVNRT ablation with either CRYO or RF energy. Two independent reviewers assessed the risk of bias according to the Cochrane Collaboration, and extracted patient, study characteristics, and procedural outcome data. Results are expressed as odds ratio (OR) or as weighted mean difference (WMD) with their 95 % confidence interval (CI).

Results

Fourteen studies (5 prospective randomized and 9 observational) with 2,340 patients (mean age range 13 to 53 years, 1,522 (65 %) females) were included in the analysis. RF ablation was performed in 1,262 (54 %) patients, while CRYO in 1,078 (46 %) patients. Acute success (abolition of dual atrioventricular node physiology or single echo beats) was achieved in 88 % of patients treated with RF versus 83 % of those treated with CRYO (OR?=?0.72, 95 % CI 0.46 to 1.13; P?=?0.157). RF ablation was associated with shorter total procedure time (WMD?=??13.7 min, 95 % CI ?23 to ?4.3 min; P?=?0.004), but slightly longer fluoroscopy time (WMD?=?+4.6 min 95 % CI +1.7 to +7.6 min; P?=?0.002). Permanent atrioventricular block occurred in 0.87 % RF cases and in no CRYO case (OR?=?3.60, 95 % CI 1.09 to 11.81; P?=?0.035). Over a median follow-up of 10.5 months (range 6 to 12 months), freedom from recurrent AVNRT was 96.5 % in the RF group versus 90.9 % in the CRYO group (OR?=?0.40, 95 % CI 0.28 to 0.58; P?<?0.001). At meta-regression analysis, no clinical or procedural variable had a significant interaction with the results above.

Conclusions

In patients undergoing AVNRT ablation, RF significantly reduces the risk of long-term arrhythmia recurrence compared to CRYO, but is associated with a higher risk of permanent atrioventricular block.     

房室结折返性心动过速患者射频导管消融术后的远期随访研究

目的评价慢径改良术治疗房室结折返性心动过速(AVNRT)的远期疗效和安全性。方法随访了184例房室结射频导管消融(RFCA)术后的AVNRT患者[男性82例,女性102例,平均年龄(48.8±15.2)岁],平均随访时间(32±26)个月。随访内容包括心电图和24h动态心电图PR间期、心动过速复发率、并发症发生率以及生活质量等。结果接受随访的本组患者慢径改良术成功率99.5%(183/184),复发率3.8%(7/184),其中术后1周内复发3例,6个月以上复发4例。一度房室阻滞经心电图证实为5例(2.7%),经动态心电图监测为9例(7.6%)。二度房室阻滞2例(1.7%),无一例发生三度房室阻滞。95.1%的患者远期随访无任何不适主诉。结论远期随访表明,射频消融房室结慢径治疗AVNRT是安全、有效的,提高了患者的生活质量。     

房室结折返性心动过速患者慢径改良术后的远期随访研究

目的 评价慢径改良术治疗房室结折返性心动过速(AVNRT)的远期疗效和安全性.方法 57例慢径改良术后的AVNRT患者[男性20例,女性37例,平均年龄(46.5±123)岁]接受了随访研究,平均随访时间(36±24)个月,随访内容包括:心电图和24 h动态心电图P-R间期、食管电生理房室结前传有效不应期(AVN-ERP)、1∶1房室传导的最大频率、心动过速复发率、并发症发生率以及生活质量等.结果 本组患者慢径改良成功率96.5%(55/57),复发率5.5%(3/55),其中术后3个月内复发1例,6个月以上复发2例.Ⅰ度房室传导阻滞经心电图证实为1例(1.8%),经Holer检测为6例(10.9%).Ⅱ度房室传导阻滞1例,远期随访未发现Ⅲ度房室传导阻滞.射频消融后AVN-ERP延长,1∶1房室传导的最大频率减慢.93.1%的患者远期随访无不适主诉.结论 远期随访表明,射频消融房室结慢径治疗AVNRT是安全、有效的,提高了患者的生活质量.     

射频消融房室结慢径治疗房室结折返性心动过速消融终点的探讨

消融房室结慢径是治疗房室结折返性心动过速（AVNRT）安全而有效的方法.但AVNRT消融终点标准意见不尽一致.本文分析163例AVNRT的射频导管消融术（RFCA）电生理特征及慢径消融时的心电改变,并对其消融的终点标准、消融方法学及并发症预防进行探讨.     

射频消融治疗房室结或房室折返性心动过速的多中心随机临床试验

目的 通过与国外进口温控射频消融导管的比较,评价国产温控射频消融导管在房室结折返性心动过速(AVNRT)和房室折返性心动过速(AVRT)的临床疗效和安全性.方法 自2008年6月至11月共入选AVNRT或AVRT患者1342例.采用多中心随机平行对照开放试验设计,应用解放军第四军医大学设计的最小化随机统计方法进行动态随机分为二组,国产导管组应用国产温控射频消融导管,进口导管组应用强生或圣犹达等公司的进口温控射频消融导管.采用常规方法在X线透视下进行心内电生理检查和射频消融.结果 国产导管组672例,即时消融成功率97.9%,进口导管组670例,即时消融成功率99.1%,两组成功率均达到96.0%以上,差异无统计学意义.国产导管组与进口导管组的手术时间[(68±36)min与(67±34)min]、曝光时间[(14±14)min与(10±11)min]、放电次数[(4.5±4.5)次与(4.6±3.9)次]、放电时间[(260±218)s与(257±207)8]、导管性能总体评分[(4.4±0.5)分与(4.5±0.4)分],两组间差异均无统计学意义.发生并发症3例,均为心包积液(国产导管组1例,进口导管组2例),经心包穿刺引流后转为正常出院,差异无统计学意义.随访3个月,复发30例,分别为国产导管组14例、进口导管组16例(2.1%与2.4%),差异无统计学意义.结论 国产温控射频消融导管可安全有效治疗AVNRT或AVRT.     

儿童房室结折返性心动过速患者经冷冻消融和射频消融的结果比较

目的 比较经导管冷冻消融和射频消融治疗儿童房室结折返性心动过速（AVNRT）的临床效果。方法 73例年龄在18岁以下，诊断为AVNRT的患者入选本研究，根据治疗方法分为冷冻消融组（冷冻组）和射频消融组（射频组），记录并分析比较两组的临床特点、冷冻标测次数、消融次数、X线曝光时间、消融术总时间、成功率、并发症发生率以及复发率。结果 共73例患者入选，冷冻组33例，男性16例，女性17例，平均年龄（12．4±2．8）岁；射频组40例，男性18例，女性22例，平均年龄（13．6±2．2）岁。冷冻组和射频组的消融次数分别为（2．7±1．7）次和（11±6．3）次（P〈0．001），X线曝光时间分别为（20±7）min和（25±9）min（P〈0．05），消融术总时间分别为（214±33）min和（164±36）min（P〈0．05），消融成功率88％（29／33）对100％（40／40）（P〈0．01），一过性房室阻滞的并发症发生率为12％对2．5％（P〈0．01）。冷冻组所有术中发生的传导阻滞均在5min内恢复。两组的复发率差异无统计学意义（6％与2．5％，P=NS）。结论 经导管冷冻消融治疗儿童AVNRT安全有效，但成功率低于射频消融，目前可作为后者的一种补充。