房室结折返性心动过速线性消融和常规方法消融比较分析

A comparison of the straight linear approach with focal approach in the patients of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia

目的比较房室结折返性心动过速(AVNRT)线性消融和常规方法消融的有效性和安全性。方法回顾性分析比较AVNRT患者和koch三角基底部线性消融和常规方法消融慢径消除率、手术成功率、复发率、放电时间、手术时间。结果线性消融放电时间、慢径消除率、手术时间均优于常规方法消融,但放电时间、手术时间二者比较无统计学意义,慢径消除率有显著性差异,具统计学意义。成功率一致。在消融过程中两组各有1例发生一过性房室传导阻滞,但均无任何程度持续性房室传导阻滞发生。结论线性消融和常规方法消融治疗AVNRT均为安全、有效的。线性消融治疗略优于常规方法消融治疗AVNRT。

Aim To compare the difference in efficacy and safety between the straight linear approach and focal approach in the patients of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia （AVNRT）. Methods In the patients of AVNRT, linear approach in the Koch＇s triangle and local mapping approach were compared in the elimination of slow pathway, the rate of the success, the rate of recurrence, the time of radiofrequency application and the total session by retrospective analysis. Results On the time of radiofrequency application, the elimination of slow pathway and the time of the total session, the straight linear approach had advantages over focal approach. There was significant differences between two groups in the elimination of slow pathway. However, there were no differences between two groups in the time of radiofrequency application, the total session and the rate of success. In two groups there was one respectively first-degree AV block occurred transiently during radiofrequency application and no persistent AV block. Conclusions Both of the linear approach and focal approach are effective and safe in the patients of AVNRT. The linear approach has a little more advantage than the focal approach.