
浏览全部资源
扫码关注微信
纸质出版:2010
移动端阅览
贾锋鹏,雷寒,马康华.特发性左后分支室性心动过速2种消融方法的对比分析[J].陆军军医大学学报(原第三军医大学学报),2010,32(07):708-711.
Jia Fengpeng,Lei Han,Ma Kanghua.Comparison of 2 radiofrequency ablation methods in idiopathic left posterior fascicular ventricular tachycardia[J].J Amry Med Univ (J Third Mil Med Univ),2010,32(07):708-711.
目的 探讨对特发性左后分支室性心动过速(简称室速)患者进行射频消融时,同时标测到舒张期电位(diastolic potential,DP)和最早收缩期前P电位(Purkinje potential,PP)作为靶点的消融方法,是否优于以最早PP为消融靶点的方法。 方法 对18例左后分支室速患者进行电生理检查,根据消融靶点不同分为2组:DP组(同时标测到DP和PP)和PP组(仅标测到最早PP)。以室速不再被诱发作为消融成功终点。比较2种方法的成功率、手术时间、X线曝光时间、消融次数、并发症发生率和复发率。 结果 18例患者中1例不能诱发室速,未行射频消融。17例诱发出临床室速,表现为右束支阻滞形,电轴左偏,其中DP组7例,PP组10例。所有患者均达消融成功终点。DP和PP距体表QRS波的间期分别为(60.17±8.16) ms 和 (30.64±7.19)ms。2组患者的年龄、室速的周长、手术时间和复发率无统计学差异(P0.05)。与PP组相比,DP组X线曝光时间较长[(18.33±1.51)min vs (15.37±2.77)min
P=0.03],消融次数较少[(4.55±2.07 )次vs (7.50±1.64)次
P=0.04]。2组患者消融术后均无左后分支阻滞发生,也无其他并发症发生。随访(14.29±10.05)个月,DP组和PP组各有1例患者出现室速复发。 结论 2种消融方法均能安全有效地治疗左后分支室速,与标测到最早PP电位为消融靶点的方法相比,同时标测到DP和PP作为靶点的消融方法消融次数较少,但X线曝光时间较长。
Objective To investigate whether taking diastolic potential (DP) and earliest Purkinje potential (PP) as ablation targets together is superior to taking earliest PP alone in patients with left posterior fascicular ventricular tachycardia (VT). Methods Totally 18 patients who were admitted in our department from May 2006 to May 2009 were enrolled
and the results of their electrophysiological examination were analyzed. According to radiofrequency (RF) ablation targets
patients were classified into 2 groups: DP+PP group (DP and PP as ablation targets together) and PP group (PP as the target alone). Successful RF ablation was established when the ventricular tachycardia was no longer inducible. The acute success rate
recurrent rate
number of ablation application
procedure time
X-ray exposure and complications were compared between DP+PP and PP groups. Results There was 1 case receiving no ablation because of not being induced to clinical VT. Seventeen cases were induced to clinical VT and displayed right bundle branch block (RBBB) and left axis morphology (DP+PP group 7 cases
and PP group 10 cases). All cases were successfully ablated
their DP-Q interval and PP-Q interval were 60.17±8.16 and 30.64±7.19 ms
respectively. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the age
ventricular tachycardial cycle
procedure time and recurrent rate. Compared to the PP group
the number of RF application in DP+PP group was fewer (4.55±2.07 vs 7.50±1.64
P=0.04)
and X- ray exposure time was a little longer (18.33±1.51 min vs 15.37±2.77 min
P=0.03). There was neither left posterior fascicular block nor other complications seen in the 2 groups. The follow-up period was 14.29±10.05 months
and during this there was 1 case recurrence in DP group (2 months after procedure) and 1 case in PP group (1 month after procedure) respectively. Conclusion The 2 methods are effective and safe for successful ablation of left posterior fascicular VT. Compared to ablation of earliest PP site alone
ablation of DP+PP might need fewer times of RF application but longer X-ray exposure time.
0
浏览量
0
下载量
0
CSCD
关联资源
相关文章
相关作者
相关机构
京公网安备11010802024621