...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology >Role of contact force‐guided radiofrequency catheter ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
【24h】

Role of contact force‐guided radiofrequency catheter ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

机译：接触力引导的射频导管消融治疗心房颤动的作用：系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Abstract Introduction CF‐sensing catheter emerged as a novel ablation technology and was increasingly used in clinical practice. Nonetheless, available evidence of efficacy and safety comparison between CF‐guided RF catheter ablation and non‐CF‐guided ablation for treatment of AF was still lacking. Methods and results Twenty‐two eligible studies were included after systematic review through the MEDLINE, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library and PubMed databases. AF/atrial tachycardia‐free survival was markedly improved in CF‐guided catheter ablation compared with non‐CF‐guided ablation at a median 12‐month follow‐up (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.06–1.19, P = 0.000, fixed). Notably, CF‐guided catheter ablation presented a robust survival benefit for treatment of paroxysmal AF (RR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.03–1.18, P = 0.005, fixed), but not persistent AF (RR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.89–1.28, P = 0.466, fixed). Moreover, procedure time (WMD: ?23.87, 95% CI: ?33.83 to ?13.91, P = 0.000, random), fluoroscopy time (WMD: ?7.78, 95% CI: ?13.93 to ?1.63, P = 0.013, random) and RF time (WMD: ?3.98, 95% CI: ?7.78 to ?0.17, P = 0.040, random) were significantly reduced in CF‐guided catheter ablation. The incidence of procedure‐related complications did not differ between these two technologies (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.16, P = 0.271, fixed). Conclusion CF‐guided RF catheter ablation was associated with a significant AF/atrial tachycardia‐free survival benefit compared with non‐CF‐guided ablation in patients with paroxysmal AF rather than persistent AF. In addition, CF‐guided ablation strategy also reduced the procedure time, fluoroscopy time, as well as RF time despite no distinct effect on the alleviation of procedure‐related complications.
机译：摘要介绍CF传感导管作为一种新型烧蚀技术，越来越多地用于临床实践。尽管如此，缺乏CF引导的射频导管消融和非CF引导消融以治疗AF之间的有效性和安全比较的可用证据。通过Medline，Google Scholar，Cochrane图书馆和PubMed数据库系统审查后，将在系统审查后包含22个合格研究的方法和结果。在中位12个月随访中的非CF引导烧蚀（RR：1.12,95％Ci：1.06-1.19，P = 0.000，CF引导导管消融AF /心房心动过速存活率明显改善固定的）。值得注意的是，CF引导的导管消融呈现了对治疗阵发性AF的稳健存活益处（RR：1.10,95％CI：1.03-1.18，P = 0.005，固定），但不持久性AF（RR：1.07,95％CI： 0.89-1.28，p = 0.466，固定）。此外，程序时间（WMD：23.87,95％CI：33.83至13.91，P = 0.000，随机透视时间（WMD：7.78,95％CI：？13.93至？1.63，P = 0.013，随机）和RF时间（WMD：3.98,95％CI：α.7.78至Δ0.17，P = 0.040，随机）在CF引导导管消融中显着降低。该两种技术之间的程序相关并发症的发生率没有区别（RR：0.83,95％CI：0.59至1.16，P = 0.271，固定）。结论CF引导的射频导管消融与伴侣动脉AF的患者的非CF引导的消融相比，与无CF引导的消融相比，与肺雄物质AF而不是持久性AF的患者相比有关。此外，CF引导的消融策略还降低了程序时间，透明时间，以及RF时间，尽管对减轻程序相关的并发症没有明显影响。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号