冷冻球囊消融术与射频消融术治疗老年心房颤动患者的疗效及安全性比较

发布时间：2018-06-24 03:16

本文选题：冷冻球囊消融术 + 射频消融术　；参考：《中国老年学杂志》2017年20期

【摘要】：目的研究比较冷冻球囊消融术(CBA)与射频消融术(RFCA)治疗老年心房颤动患者的有效性和安全性。方法 80例经药物治疗失败或效果不理想的老年心房颤动患者,采用随机数字表法分为CBA组和RFCA组各40例。比较两组肺静脉隔离(PVI)成功率、手术时间、消融时间、冷冻最低温度及术后并发症发生情况。结果两组静脉PVI成功率无明显差异(P0.05),CBA组各支静脉手术时间及消融世间均短于RFCA组,冷冻所需的最低温度低于RFCA组(均P0.05)。两组术后均未出现脑血管意外,并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P=0.274)。结论 CBA与RFCA用于治疗心房颤动的PVI效果并无太大差异,但CBA的优势在于缩短了手术时间及消融时间,因此极大改善了患者预后,有利于患者的长期恢复,有较高的安全性。虽然CBA临床操作难度与RFCA较低,但临床上还应根据患者情况、医院条件等选择采用CBA还是RFCA。
[Abstract]:Objective to compare the efficacy and safety of cryopreservation balloon ablation (CBA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFCA) in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation. Methods 80 elderly patients with atrial fibrillation were divided into CBA group (40 cases) and RFCA group (40 cases). The success rate of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), operation time, ablation time, freezing minimum temperature and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Results there was no significant difference in the success rate of venous PVI between the two groups (P0.05). The operation time and ablation world of each branch of vein in CBA group were shorter than those in RFCA group, and the minimum temperature required for freezing was lower than that in RFCA group (P0.05). There was no cerebrovascular accident after operation in both groups, and there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (P = 0.274). Conclusion there is no significant difference between CBA and RFCA in the treatment of atrial fibrillation, but the advantage of CBA is that it shortens the operation time and ablation time, so it greatly improves the prognosis of the patients and is beneficial to the long-term recovery of the patients. Although the clinical operation difficulty and RFCA of CBA are lower, CBA or RFCA should be chosen according to the patient's condition and hospital condition.
【作者单位】：荆州市第一人民医院长江大学附属第一医院心内科;上海市第一医院心内科;首都医科大学附属安贞医院心内科;上海市胸科医院心内科;
【分类号】：R541.75

【相似文献】