Advertisement

CardioVasc

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 43–47 | Cite as

Optimale Therapie bei Vorhofflimmern

Radiofrequenz-Ablation

  • Felix BourierEmail author
Fortbildung Schwerpunkt Kardiologie
  • 16 Downloads

Die Katheterablation von Vorhofflimmern (VHF) mittels Radiofrequenz-Energie hat sich zu einem Standardverfahren der interventionellen Therapie dieser Rhythmusstörung entwickelt. Die elektrische Isolation der Pulmonalvenen vom Vorhof verspricht bei Patienten mit paroxysmalem VHF gute Erfolgsraten und kann bei an Herzinsuffizienz leidenden Patienten Mortalitäts- und Hospitalisierungs-Raten verbessern.

Referenzen

  1. 1.
    Cardoso R, Mendirichaga R, Fernandes G et al. Cryoballoon versus Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016;27(10):1151–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marrouche NF, Brachmann J, Andresen D et al. Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation with Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(5):417–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heeringa J, van der Kuip DA, Hofman A et al. Prevalence, incidence and lifetime risk of atrial.brillation: the Rotterdam study. Eur Heart J. 2006;27(8):949–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stewart S, Hart CL, Hole DJ, McMurray JJ. A population-based study of the long-term risks associated with atrial fibrillation: 20-year follow-up of the Renfrew/Paisley study. Am J Med. 2002;113(5):359–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haïssaguerre M, Jaïs P, Shah DC et al. Spontaneous initiation of atrial fibrillation by ectopic beats originating in the pulmonary veins. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(10):659–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calkins H, Hindricks G, Cappato R et al. 2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial.brillation. Europace. 2018;20(1):e1–e160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leitz P, Mönnig G, Güner F et al. Comparing learning curves of two established „single-shot“ devices for ablation of atrial fibrillation. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2018;53(3):317–322PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen S, Schmidt B, Bordignon S et al. Atrial fibrillation ablation using cryoballoon technology: Recent advances and practical techniques. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2018;29(6):932–943PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reddy VY, Koruth J, Jais P et al. Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation With Pulsed Electric Fields: An Ultra-Rapid, Tissue-Selective Modality for Cardiac Ablation. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;4(8):987–995PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuck KH, Brugada J, Fürnkranz A et al. Cryoballoon or Radiofrequency Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(23):2235–45Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Villacastín J, Pérez-Castellano N, Moreno J, González R. Left atrial flutter after radiofrequency catheter ablation of focal atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2003;14(4):417–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chugh A, Oral H, Good E et al. Catheter ablation of atypical atrial flutter and atrial tachycardia within the coronary sinus after left atrial ablation for atrial.brillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(1):83–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jaïs P, Matsuo S, Knecht S et al. A deductive mapping strategy for atrial tachycardia following atrial.brillation ablation: importance of localized reentry. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2009;20(5):480–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Estner HL, Deisenhofer I, Luik A et al. Electrical isolation of pulmonary veins in patients with atrial.brillation: reduction of fluoroscopy exposure and procedure duration by the use of a non-fluoroscopic navigation system (NavX). Europace. 2006;8(8):583–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bourier F, Fahrig R, Wang P et al. Accuracy assessment of catheter guidance technology in electrophysiology procedures: a comparison of a new 3D-based fluoroscopy navigation system to current electroanatomic mapping systems. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2014;25(1):74–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brooks AG, Wilson L, Kuklik P et al. Image integration using NavX Fusion: initial experience and validation. Heart Rhythm. 2008;5(4):526–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khaykin Y, Oosthuizen R, Zarnett L et al. CARTO-guided vs. NavX-guided pulmonary vein antrum isolation and pulmonary vein antrum isolation performed without 3-D mapping: effect of the 3-D mapping system on procedure duration and fluoroscopy time. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2011;30(3):233–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Estner HL, Grazia Bongiorni M, Chen J et al. Use of fluoroscopy in clinical electrophysiology in Europe: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association Survey. Europace. 2015;17(7):1149–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bourier F, Reents T, Ammar-Busch S et al. Evaluation of a new very low dose imaging protocol: feasibility and impact on X-ray dose levels in electrophysiology procedures. Europace. 2016;18(9):1406–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wilber DJ, Pappone C, Neuzil P et al. Comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy and radiofrequency catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial.brillation: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2010;303(4):333–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Squara F, Zhao A, Marijon E et al. Comparison between radiofrequency with contact force-sensing and second-generation cryoballoon for paroxysmal atrial.brillation catheter ablation: a multicentre European evaluation. Europace. 2015;17(5):718–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Das M, Loveday JJ, Wynn GJ et al. Ablation index, a novel marker of ablation lesion quality: prediction of pulmonary vein reconnection at repeat electrophysiology study and regional differences in target values. Europace. 2017;19(5):775–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thiagalingam A, D’Avila A, Foley L et al. Importance of catheter contact force during irrigated radiofrequency ablation: evaluation in a porcine ex vivo model using a force-sensing catheter. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2010;21(7):806–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shah DC, Lambert H, Nakagawa H et al. Area under the real-time contact force curve (force-time integral) predicts radiofrequency lesion size in an in vitro contractile model. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2010;21(9):1038–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reddy VY, Shah D, Kautzner J et al. The relationship between contact force and clinical outcome during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial.brillation in the TOCCATA study. Heart Rhythm. 2012;9(11):1789–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hussein A, Das M, Chaturvedi V et al. Prospective use of Ablation Index targets improves clinical outcomes following ablation for atrial.brillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2017;28(9):1037–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ullah W, McLean A, Tayebjee MH et al. Randomized trial comparing pulmonary vein isolation using the SmartTouch catheter with or without real-time contact force data. Heart Rhythm. 2016;13(9):1761–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Providência R, Marijon E, Combes S et al. Higher contact-force values associated with better mid-term outcome of paroxysmal atrial.brillation ablation using the Smart-Touch™ catheter. Europace. 2015;17(1):56–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Afzal MR, Chatta J, Samanta A et al. Use of contact force sensing technology during radiofrequency ablation reduces recurrence of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12(9):1990–6PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Klinik für Herz- und Kreislauferkrankungen Abteilung für Elektrophysiologie, Deutsches Herzzentrum MünchenTechnische Universität MünchenMünchenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations