论文部分内容阅读
目的 比较化学消融法和射频消融法在建立房室传导阻滞动物模型中的特点和各自优点。方法 将12只Yorkshire猪随机分成两组,化学消融组(6只)于房室交界区采用注射无水乙醇或 37%福尔马林的方法建立房室传导阻滞;射频消融组(6只)于koch三角处采用放电的方法建立房室传导阻滞。两实验组心电监护示房室分离为术终。两组在完成房室传导阻滞术后,观察并比较术后 4 周记录的心电图和 Holter。结果 射频消融组成功率大于化学消融组(射频消融组为 83 %,化学消融组为 50 %),手术并发症化学消融组显著高于射频消融组。化学消融组感染发生率为 50 %,大出血发生率为 30 %,死亡率 33.3 %,射频消融组相应为 0 %,0 %,0 %。结论射频消融法较化学消融法简便、安全且并发症少,在有条件的实验室,应优先选用射频消融法建立缓慢型心律失常模型。
Objective To compare the characteristics and advantages of chemical ablation and radiofrequency ablation in the establishment of animal model of atrioventricular block. Methods Twelve Yorkshire pigs were randomly divided into two groups. The ablation group (6 mice) was established by injecting absolute ethanol or 37% formalin in the ablation zone in the ablation group. ) At koch triangle discharge method to establish atrioventricular block. Two experimental group ECG showed atrioventricular terminal separation. After completion of atrioventricular block in both groups, the electrocardiogram and Holter recorded 4 weeks after surgery were observed and compared. Results The power of radiofrequency ablation was higher than that of chemical ablation group (83% in radiofrequency ablation group and 50% in chemical ablation group). The ablation rate of radiofrequency ablation group was significantly higher than radiofrequency ablation group. In the chemical ablation group, the incidence of infection was 50%, the incidence of major bleeding was 30% and the mortality rate was 33.3%. The RFA group was 0%, 0% and 0% respectively. Conclusions Radiofrequency ablation is more simple, safe and less complicated than chemical ablation. In a conditional laboratory, a radiofrequency ablation method should be given priority to establish a slow arrhythmia model.