摘要
目的:比较温控与非温控射频导管消融治疗阵发性室上性心动过速的效果。方法:31例阵发性室上性心动过速患者随机分为温控导管消融组(16例)和非温控导管消融组(15例);观察2组患者消融的成功率、复发率、并发症、消融次数、有效放电时间、手术时间、放电功率及阻抗的异同。结果:2组患者消融即刻全部成功,无并发症;非温控导管消融组术后1例复发,再次消融成功;温控导管消融组与非温控导管消融组消融次数、平均有效放电时间、手术时间、放电功率、阻抗分别为(2.4±1.1)次比(4.5±2.3)次(P<0.05),(115.3±34.0)s比(117.5±29.0)s(P>0.05),(70.3±10.7)m比(75.7±13.2)m(P>0.05),(34.2±8.1)W比(24.8±2.0)W(P<0.001),(101.2±18.3)Ω比(99.6±24.8)Ω(P>0.05)。非温控导管消融组消融次数明显多于温控导管消融组,而放电功率明显小于温控导管消融组,2组手术时间无差异。结论:温控与非温控导管消融治疗阵发性室上性心动过速疗效等同。
Objective: To compare the effect of temperature and non-temperature controlled radiofrequency catheter ablation of superventricular tachycardias. Methods: 31 cases with paraoxymal superventricular tachycardias were randomized into temperature controlled group(16) and non-temperature controlled group(15). The successful rate, reoccurrent rate, complication, ablation numbers,effective ablation time, total procedure time, power and resistance were observed. Results: All cases were successfully ablated without any complication. Tachycardia in one case reoccurred one month post procedure and was successfully ablated again. The ablation numbers, mean effective ablation time, total procedure time, power and resistance were(2.4 ± 1.1 vs 4.5 ± 2.3, P < 0.05),(115.3 ± 34.0 vs 117.5 ± 29.0 s, P >.05),(70.3 ± 10.7 vs 75.7 ± 13.2 m, P > 0.05),(34.2 ± 8.1 vs 24.8 ± 2.0 W, P < 0.001),(101.2 ± 18.3 vs 99.6 ± 24.8Ω, P >.05)respectively between temperature controlled group and non-temperature controlled group. Conclusion:Temperature-controlled and non-temperature controlled ablation has the same curative effect of superventricular tachycardias.
出处
《南京医科大学学报（自然科学版）》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2004年第6期659-661,共3页
Journal of Nanjing Medical University(Natural Sciences)
