摘要
目的比较56孔冷盐水灌注导管与6孔冷盐水灌注导管应用于心房颤动射频导管消融(下称消融)的有效性与安全性。方法入选40例有症状的阵发性心房颤动患者,随机分组使用56孔的Thermocool SF^(?)导管(SF组,20例)或6孔的Thermocool^(?)导管(TC组,20例)进行环肺静脉电隔离(CPVI)术。结果 SF组的消融时间(2 451s)和冷盐水灌注量(327ml)较TC组(2 859s,810ml)减少(Z=2.083、5.058,P<0.05或0.01);SF组X线照射时间(9.10min)及剂量[(30.36±16.42)mGy]也较TC组[14.45min、(46.15±20.95)mGy]减少(Z=2.137、t=2.654,均P<0.05)。两组患者在术中及术后均未发生并发症。结论 56孔冷盐水灌注导管心房颤动消融安全,疗效优于6孔冷盐水灌注导管,X线照射较少。
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of Thermocool SF catheter to Thermocool catheter in atrial fibrillation （AF） ablation. Methods A total of 40 patients with paroxysmal AF were assigned randomly to undergo circumferential pulmonary veins isolation using Thermocoel SF catheter with a porous tip （56 holes）（Group SF, n=20） or Thermocool catheter with 6 irrigation holes at the distal tip（Group TC, n=20）. Results Ablation duration was significantly shorter [2 451s versus 2 859s （Z=2.083, P〈0.05）] and irrigation volume was significantly lower [327ml versus 810ml （Z=5.058, P〈0.01）] in group SF than in group TC. The total fluoroscopy time and radiation dose were significantly lower in group SF than in group TC [9.10 min versus 14.45 min （Z=2.137, P〈0.05）, 30.36 ± 16.42 mGy versus 46.15 ± 20.95 mGy （t=2.654, P〈0.05）, respectively]. There was no complication during and after the procedure in both groups. Conclusion AF ablation by Thermocool SF catheter is safety with more effective and less X-ray exposure than Thermocool catheter.
出处
《心电与循环》
2015年第3期172-174,224,共4页
Journal of Electrocardiology and Circulation
