论文部分内容阅读
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。
Objective To compare the effectiveness and safety of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) ablation and conventional ablation. Methods A retrospective analysis of AVNRT patients and koch triangular basement by linear ablation and conventional ablation of slow path ablation rate, success rate, recurrence rate, discharge time, operation time. Results Linear ablation discharge time, slow path elimination rate and operation time were all better than conventional methods. However, the discharge time and operation time were not statistically significant, and the slow-path elimination rate was significantly different with statistical significance. The same success rate. During ablation, one case of transient atrioventricular block occurred in each of the two groups, but no persistent AV block occurred in any degree. Conclusions Linear ablation and conventional ablation of AVNRT are safe and effective. Linear ablation is superior to conventional ablation of AVNRT.