射频消融联合左心耳封堵术对房颤患者左心结构及功能的影响
The Effect of Radiofrequency Ablation Combined with Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion on Left Heart Structure and Function in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation
摘要: 目的:分析射频消融联合左心耳封堵术对房颤患者左心功能及结构的影响,为一站式的临床应用提供更客观的依据。方法:连续纳入2022年3月至2023年4月期间在青岛大学附属医院心血管内科病房住院行一站式手术(LAAO + CA)的心房颤动患者50人,另取单纯行射频消融术(CA)患者50人为对照组,收集两组患者的临床资料,左心结构及功能指标,术后随访6个月,探索一站式手术患者对左心功能及结构的影响。结果:1) CA组与CA + LAAC组年龄、性别、体重指数(BMI)均无统计学差异(P > 0.05),HAS-BLED、CHA2DS2-VASc评分有统计学差异(P值<0.05)。2) 术前到术后6个月的随访中,两组术后左心室舒张末期容积直径(LVDd)、左心室射血分数(LVEF)的差异无统计学差异(P > 0.05),在左心房内径(LAD)、左心室舒张末期容积(LVDs)、二尖瓣环组织多普勒速度(e')、二尖瓣舒张末期速度E和二尖瓣环速度比值(E/e')方面的差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.05),CA组的LAD、LVDs、E/e'小于CA + LAAC组,而CA组e'大于CA + LAAC组。3) CA组与CA + LAAC组患者自身前后比较中,CA组与CA + LAAC组患者LAD、LVEF自身前后对比差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05);CA组e'、E/e'自身前后对比差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.05),而CA + LAAC组患者e'、E/e'无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。结论:1) 单纯射频消融术后患者,LAD较前缩小,LVEF上升,LVFP减小,可逆转心脏结构重构,改善心功能,与一站式手术相比,LAD缩小程度不如单纯射频消融术,左心收缩功能未受影响,提示左心耳封堵术可能减低射频消融术对左房重构的改善程度。2) 一站式手术e'减小,差异具有统计学意义,E/e'增加,差异具有统计学意义,说明左心耳封堵器内皮化后可能会引起舒张早期流入左心室的血量减少,左心室充盈压升高。
Abstract: To analyze the impact of radiofrequency ablation combined with left atrial appendage occlusion on left heart function and structure in patients with atrial fibrillation, and provide more objective basis for one-stop clinical application. Method: A total of 50 patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent one-stop surgery (LAAO + CA) in the Cardiovascular Department of Qingdao University Affiliated Hospital between March 2022 and April 2023 were enrolled consecutively. Another 50 patients who underwent simple radiofrequency ablation (CA) were selected as the control group. Clinical data, left heart structure and functional indicators were collected from both groups of pa-tients, and postoperative follow-up was conducted for 6 months to explore the impact of one-stop surgery on left heart function and structure. Result: 1) There was no statistically significant differ-ence in age, gender, and body mass index (BMI) between the CA group and the CA + LAAC group (P > 0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference in HAS-BLED and CHA2DS2-VASc scores (P < 0.05). 2) During the preoperative to postoperative 6-month follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) between the two groups in left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVDd) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, there were statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) in left atrial diameter (LAD), left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVDs), mitral annular tissue Doppler velocity (e'), mitral end diastolic velocity E, and mitral annular velocity ratio (E/e') between the CA group and the CA group LVDs and E/e' are smaller than those in the CA + LAAC group, while the CA group e' is larger than that in the CA + LAAC group. 3) In the comparison between the CA group and the CA + LAAC group, there were statistically significant differences in LAD and LVEF between the CA group and the CA + LAAC group (P < 0.05); The difference between the CA group e' and E/e' before and after comparison was statistically significant (P < 0.05), while the CA + LAAC group had no statistically significant differences in e' and E/e' (P > 0.05). Conclusion: 1) In patients undergoing simple radiofrequency ablation, LAD decreases compared to before, LVEF increases, and LVFP decreases, which can reverse cardiac structural remodeling and improve cardiac function. Compared with one-stop surgery, the degree of LAD reduction is not as good as that of simple radiofrequency ablation, and left ventricular systolic function is not affected. This suggests that left atrial appendage occlusion may reduce the degree of improvement of radiofrequency ablation on left atrial remodeling. 2) The one-stop surgery showed a statistically significant decrease in E' and an increase in E/e', indicating that endothelialization of the left atrial appendage occluder may lead to a decrease in blood flow into the left ventricle during early diastole and an increase in left ventricular filling pressure.
文章引用:张丙正, 蔡尚郎. 射频消融联合左心耳封堵术对房颤患者左心结构及功能的影响[J]. 临床医学进展, 2024, 14(2): 3590-3597. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2024.142502

1. 引言

房颤(atrial fibrillation, AF)是世界范围内最常见的持续性心律失常之一,它对心脏功能和结构产生了重大的不利影响。房颤导致心脏节律的不规则性和心房的快速、无序收缩,进一步导致心房扩大、心室负荷增加、卒中风险增加以及心力衰竭等并发症的风险升高 [1] 。面对这些潜在的危害,寻求有效的治疗策略对于改善房颤患者的生活质量和心脏健康至关重要。

近年来,射频消融联合左心耳封堵术作为一种创新的房颤治疗方法已引起广泛关注 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] 。这一手术的核心目标是通过射频消融技术来恢复心脏的窦性心律,同时通过封堵左心耳来减少卒中风险,这是房颤患者最常见的并发症之一。导管消融通过改善心脏的电活动来治疗房颤,而左心耳封堵则有助于减少左心房内血栓的形成,从而减少卒中的发生 [4] [7] [8] 。

然而,导管消融联合左心耳封堵术的确切影响房颤患者的左心功能和结构尚未完全理解。虽然有一些研究已经开始探讨其潜在影响,但仍需要更多的深入研究来确定该手术对患者的临床结果和生活质量的具体影响。因此,本研究旨在探究导管消融联合左心耳封堵术对房颤患者左心功能和结构的影响,以进一步了解该治疗方法的有效性和潜在益处。

2. 对象与方法

2.1. 研究对象

连续纳入2022年3月至2023年3月期间于青岛大学附属医院心血管内科病区住院行射频消融及射频消融联合左心耳封堵一站式手术的房颤患者各50例。收集2组患者的临床资料,包括年龄、性别、BMI、房颤类型、CHA2DS2-VASc评分、HAS-BLED评分、心脏超声左心房前后径(LAD),左心室舒张末期内径(LVDd),左心室收缩末期内径(LVDs),左心室射血分数,E/e峰。本研究符合《赫尔辛基宣言》涉及的伦理要求,本研究通过青岛大学附属医院伦理委员会审批通过。

2.2. 纳入与排除标准

一站式术组纳入标准:年龄 ≥ 18岁的阵发性、持续性非瓣膜性房颤患者且具有高卒中风险(男性CHA2DS2-VASc评分 ≥ 2分,女性 ≥ 3分)且存在一下不适宜长期服用抗凝药物指证之一:1) 有明确的出血病史或出血倾向;2) 规范抗凝的情况下仍出现血栓栓塞事件;3) 长期口服抗凝药依从性差;4) 高出血风险(HAS-BLED评分 ≥ 3分)。

单纯射频消融术组纳入标准:1) 年龄 ≥ 18岁的阵发性、持续性非瓣膜性房颤患者;2) 抗心律失常药物控制不佳。

排除标准:1) 严重的心脏瓣膜病;2) 未控制的甲亢或甲减;3) 左房或左心耳内血栓形成;4) 不能耐受短期抗凝病人(至少3个月);5) 术前3月发生急性心肌梗死;6) 非初次行射频消融术病人。

2.3. 研究方法

2.3.1. 术前准备

在术前需应用抗凝药物至少1月,并行术前超声心动图,以了解心脏结构和功能,并测量左心大小等参数。以双平面面积–长度法测量LAVI。同时,行胸主动脉CT造影或经食道超声心动图或排除心房和心耳血栓的存在。

2.3.2. 手术方式

进行手术前,对双侧锁骨上下区和双侧腹股沟区皮肤进行消毒,然后铺设无菌单。在右侧腹股沟区进行局部麻醉后,穿刺右侧股静脉,置入6F鞘,然后送十极冠状窦标测导管至冠状窦内。接着再次穿刺右侧股静脉,置入8.5F Swartz鞘,完成房间隔穿刺。给予静脉普通肝素,并维持活化凝血时间在250~350 s之间。在右侧股静脉送入星形标测电极至左心房,在Carto3系统辅助下创建左心房模型,然后使用SmartTouch射频消融导管完成双侧环肺静脉前庭电隔离(PVI)。必要时进行线性消融、非肺静脉触发灶消融、基质标测消融、复杂碎裂心房电位消融等。通过星形标测电极至肺静脉验证双向电传导阻滞即完成射频消融。然后送入加硬导丝至左上肺静脉,进行Watchman左心耳封堵器引导,并送至左心房。在特定体位完成左心耳造影,根据造影结果选择与患者左心耳大小匹配的封堵器。封堵器到位后,通过评价位置、锚定、型号和密封等标准,若达到标准则完成释放。若患者未能转复窦性心律,则在镇静状态下进行150 J同步直流电复律。

2.3.3. 术后处理

所有术后患者均口服新型抗凝药物(NOAC)抗凝,剂量为利伐沙班每次15 mg每日一次或达比加群酯每次110 mg每日两次。并口服胺碘酮抗心律失常,初始用量前10天每次200 mg,每日3次,之后调整为每次200 mg,每日1次;甲状腺异常者或胺碘酮不耐受者口服决奈达隆抗心律失常,每次400 mg,每日2次。抗凝和抗心律失常药物均持续使用3个月。

2.4. 统计学处理

通过SPSS26.0统计软件来进行数据的统计处理及分析比较,以α = 0.05作为两组间比较的检验水准。计数资料使用n来表示,应用Kolmogorov-Smirnov检验来确定数据是否服从正态分布。正态分布数据表示为平均值 ± 标准差,而非正态分布数据表示为具有四分位数范围的中位数。分类资料用百分比表示,比较用卡方检验。计量资料数据用均数 ± 标准差表示,组间均数比较采用独立样本t检验,组内术前及术后数据选用配对t检验。P < 0.05为有统计学差异。

3. 结果

3.1. 基线资料

根据不同的术式将100名患者分为射频消融术组与射频消融联合左心耳封堵术一站式组,其中射频消融术组50例,一站式组50例,他们的基线资料比较中,CA组、LAAO + CA组、年龄、性别、体重指数(BMI)均无统计学差异(P > 0.05),HAS-BLED、CHA2DS2-VASc评分P值<0.05,组间差异存在统计学意义。该差异主要为两组纳入标准不同所致(见表1)。

3.2. 两组患者术前超声心动图指标比较

射频消融术(CA)组与一站式(CA + LAAC)组等左心房内径、左心室舒张末期内径、左心室收缩末期内径、左心室射血分数、二尖瓣环组织多普勒速度、二尖瓣舒张末期速度E和二尖瓣环速度比值方面差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05) (见表2)。

Table 1. Comparison of baseline data between two groups of patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation and one-stop surgery

表1. 射频消融术与一站式两组患者基线资料的比较

Table 2. Comparison of preoperative echocardiography between radiofrequency ablation group and one-stop group

表2. 射频消融术组与一站式组术前超声心动图比较

注:LAD (左心房内径),LVDd:左心室舒张末期内径,LVDs:左心室收缩末期内径,LVEF:左心室射血分数,e'二尖瓣环组织多普勒速度,E/e':二尖瓣舒张末期速度E和二尖瓣环速度比值。

3.3. 射频消融术组与一站式组患者术后6月超声心动图比较

两组术后左心室舒张末期容积直径(LVDd)、左心室射血分数(LVEF)的差异无统计学差异(P > 0.05),在左心房内径(LAD)、左心室舒张末期容积(LVDs)、二尖瓣环组织多普勒速度(e')、二尖瓣舒张末期速度E和二尖瓣环速度比值(E/e')方面的差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.05),CA组的LAD、LVDs、E/e'小于CA + LAAC组,而CA组e'大于CA + LAAC组(见表3)。

Table 3. Comparison of postoperative echocardiography between radiofrequency ablation group and one-stop group

表3. 射频消融术组与一站式组术后超声心动图比较

注:LAD (左心房内径),LVDd:左心室舒张末期内径,LVDs:左心室收缩末期内径,LVEF:左心室射血分数,e'二尖瓣环组织多普勒速度,E/e':二尖瓣舒张末期速度E和二尖瓣环速度比值。

3.4. 射频消融术组与一站式组患者超声心动图自身前后比较

射频消融术组与一站式组患者自身前后比较中,CA组与CA + LAAC组患者LAD、LVEF自身前后对比差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05);CA组e'、E/e'自身前后对比差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.05),而CA + LAAC组患者e'、E/e'无统计学意义(P > 0.05) (见表4)。

Table 4. Comparison between the radiofrequency ablation group and the one-stop group before and after echocardiography

表4. 射频消融术组与一站式组超声心动图前后自身比较

注:LAD (左心房内径),LVDd:左心室舒张末期内径,LVDs:左心室收缩末期内径,LVEF:左心室射血分数,e'二尖瓣环组织多普勒速度,E/e':二尖瓣舒张末期速度E和二尖瓣环速度比值。

4. 讨论

房颤可导致左心房重构,左心房扩大被认为是心血管不良结局的生物标志物 [9] ,心房重构包括电重构和结构重构,电重构通过离子通道功能、细胞内钙处理、自主神经活动和细胞间电导的变化而发生。结构重塑是指心房组织组成的改变 [10] [11] ,左房的结构重构参与了房颤的发生与维持机制。多项研究表明,二尖瓣舒张早期血流速度峰值E与二尖瓣环舒张早期运动速度峰值e'的比值E/e'是临床用于评估左心室充盈压(left ventricular filling pressure, LVFP)最准确的无创的定量指标 [12] [13] 。

本研究发现,经6个月的随访,成功的射频消融术可逆转左房心肌重塑,降低左房内径,增加左心射血分数,改善患者心功能。这可能是房颤患者经射频消融术后,患者恢复窦性心律,左房顺应性增加,LV充盈压减少,使左心房的收缩功能改善。左心耳(left atrial appendage, LAA)是沿左心房(left atrium, LA)前侧壁向前下延伸的狭长、弯曲的盲端结构,具有主动舒缩和分泌功能,对缓解LA内压力升高及保证左心室(left ventricle, LV)充盈具有重要意义 [14] 有研究表明,去除LAA的患者ANP分泌明显减少,伴随水和盐的潴留增加 [15] 血浆ANP对心房电重构的影响主要表现在抑制AERP缩短,对心房结构重构的影响主要通过影响肾素–血管紧张素–醛固酮系统,其中血管紧张素II诱导形成该系统中主要的细胞因子,其促进成纤维细胞的增殖、分化,细胞外基质的合成及分泌,导致心房纤维化的形成 [16] ,ANP可抑制肾素的释放与醛固酮的合成,减少心房纤维化发生 [17] [18] ,因此LAAC术后,LAA的机械功能和内分泌功能均会发生改变。这些变化会进一步影响心脏的功能和结构。外科术中行血流动力学检在发现,夹闭LAA可导致即刻LA平均压、二尖瓣口和肺静脉口舒张期血流速度上升 [19] 。本研究也表明,与单纯CA相比,CA联合LAAC术后患者LAD较前下降,但改善程度不如单纯射频消融治疗,王光记 [20] 等对30名心房颤动患者进行LAAC术后随访,发现术后12月和术后24月患者LAD明显增大,而短期内(6个月内)对心脏功能及左心室功能无明显影响。本研究中一站式治疗术后可增加左心室射血分数,变化具有统计学意义。与单纯射频消融术相比,变化无统计学意义,提示左心耳封堵器对左心室的收缩功能无明显影响。此外,一站式手术e'减小,差异具有统计学意义,E/e'增加,差异具有统计学意义,说明左心耳封堵器内皮化后可能会引起舒张早期流入左心室的血量减少,左心室充盈压升高。

本研究为单中心研究,病例数较少,未来应进一步增加样本量,随访时间较短,需进一步增加随访时间,其结果存在一定局限性。此外,房颤发作时时左心耳的血流模式和血流速度与窦性心律时不同。因此,不同类型的房颤对LAAO术后血流动力学的影响不同,可根据不同房颤类型行进一步研究。

5. 结论

1) 单纯射频消融术后患者,LAD较前缩小,LVEF上升,LVFP减小,可逆转心脏结构重构,改善心功能,与一站式手术相比,LAD缩小程度不如单纯射频消融术,左心收缩功能未受影响,提示左心耳封堵术可能减低射频消融术对左房重构的改善程度。

2) 一站式手术e'减小,差异具有统计学意义,E/e'增加,差异具有统计学意义,说明左心耳封堵器内皮化后可能会引起舒张早期流入左心室的血量减少,左心室充盈压升高。

NOTES

*通讯作者Email: caishanglang1961@126.com

参考文献

[1] Bajraktari, G., Bytyçi, I. and Henein, M.Y. (2020) Left Atrial Structure and Function Predictors of Recurrent Fibrillation after Catheter Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging, 40, 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cpf.12595
[2] Calvo, N., Salterain, N., Arguedas, H., et al. (2015) Combined Catheter Ablation and Left Atrial Appendage Closure as a Hybrid Procedure for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation. EP Europace, 17, 1533-1540.
https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euv070
[3] Chen, M., Sun, J., Wang, Q.S., et al. (2022) Long-Term Outcome of Combined Catheter Ablation and Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Atrial Fibrillation Patients. International Journal of Cardiology, 368, 41-48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2022.08.007
[4] Fink, T., Sciacca, V. and Sommer, P. (2023) Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation after Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Friend or Foe? Heart (British Cardiac Society), 109, 894-895.
https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2023-322374
[5] Ghannam, M., Jongnarangsin, K., Emami, H., et al. (2023) In-cidental Left Atrial Appendage Isolation after Catheter Ablation of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Mechanisms and Long-Term Risk of Thromboembolism. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 34, 1152-1161.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.15889
[6] Liu, Z., Mei, X., Jiang, H., et al. (2023) Left Atrial Appendage Volume Predicts Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence after Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation: A Meta-Analysis. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, 120, e20220471.
[7] Chew, D., Zhou, K., Pokorney, S., et al. (2022) Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion versus Oral Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation: A Decision Analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine, 175, 1230-1239.
https://doi.org/10.7326/M21-4653
[8] Karim, N., Ho, S.Y., Nicol, E., et al. (2020) The Left Atrial Appendage in Humans: Structure, Physiology, and Pathogenesis. EP Europace, 22, 5-18.
https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euz212
[9] Olsen, F.J., Darkner, S., Chen, X., et al. (2020) Left Atrial Structure and Function among Different Subtypes of Atrial Fibrillation: An Echocardiographic Substudy of the AMIO-CAT Trial. European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging, 21, 1386-1394.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jeaa222
[10] Prabhu, S., Mclellan, A.J.A., Walters, T.E., et al. (2015) Atrial Structure and Function and Its Implications for Current and Emerging Treatments for Atrial Fibrillation. Progress in Cardi-ovascular Diseases, 58, 152-167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2015.08.004
[11] Qiu, D., Peng, L., Ghista, D.N., et al. (2021) Left Atrial Remod-eling Mechanisms Associated with Atrial Fibrillation. Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology, 12, 361-372.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13239-021-00527-w
[12] Lee, S.H., Choi, K.H., Yang, J.H., et al. (2022) Association between Preexisting Elevated Left Ventricular Filling Pressure and Clinical Outcomes of Future Acute Myocardial In-farction. Circulation Journal, 86, 660-667.
https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-21-0312
[13] Chen, S.M., He, R., Li, W.H., et al. (2016) Relationship between Exercise Induced Elevation of Left Ventricular Filling Pressure and Exercise Intolerance in Patients with Atrial Fibril-lation. Journal of Geriatric Cardiology: JGC, 13, 546-551.
[14] Delgado, V., Di Biase L., Leung, M., et al. (2017) Structure and Function of the Left Atrium and Left Atrial Appendage: AF and Stroke Implications. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 70, 3157-3172.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.10.063
[15] Beigel, R., Wunderlich, N.C., Ho, S.Y., et al. (2014) The Left Atrial Appendage: Anatomy, Function, and Noninvasive Evaluation. JACC Cardiovascular Imaging, 7, 1251-1265.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2014.08.009
[16] 朱娜娜, 单兆亮. 心房钠尿肽和钠尿肽C型受体与心房颤动时心房纤维化关系的研究进展[J]. 中华老年心脑血管病杂志, 2023, 25(2): 215-217.
[17] 李向东, 单兆亮. 心房钠尿肽对心房重构的影响[J]. 中华老年心脑血管病杂志, 2022, 24(4): 442-443.
[18] Kasama, S., Furuya, M., Toyama, T., et al. (2008) Effect of Atrial Natriuretic Peptide on Left Ventricular Remodelling in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction. European Heart Journal, 29, 1485-1494.
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehn206
[19] Tabata, T., Oki, T., Yamada, H., et al. (1998) Role of Left Atrial Appendage in Left Atrial Reservoir Function as Evaluated by Left Atrial Appendage Clamping during Cardiac Surgery. The American Journal of Cardiology, 81, 327-332.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(97)00903-X
[20] 王光记, 孔彬, 廖佳芬, 等. 左心耳封堵对非瓣膜性心房颤动患者心脏结构及功能的远期影响[J]. 中华心律失常学杂志, 2019(2): 124-128.