| 刘晓宇,钱玲玲,郑杰,等.磁导航指导下心房颤动导管消融与手动消融辐射剂量的对比研究[J].中华放射医学与防护杂志,2015,35(4):307-311.Liu Xiaoyu,Qian Lingling,Zheng Jie,et al.Clinical study of radiation exposure from atrial fibrillation catheter ablation guided by magnetic navigation system[J].Chin J Radiol Med Prot,2015,35(4):307-311 |
| 磁导航指导下心房颤动导管消融与手动消融辐射剂量的对比研究 |
| Clinical study of radiation exposure from atrial fibrillation catheter ablation guided by magnetic navigation system |
| 投稿时间：2014-06-26 |
| DOI：10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-5098.2015.04.018 |
| 中文关键词: 磁导航 心房颤动 心血管介入 X射线 |
| 英文关键词:Magnetic navigation system Atrial fibrillation Cardiovascular intervention X-rays |
| 基金项目:江苏省无锡市科技发展资金资助项目(CSE32N1302);无锡市医院管理中心医学科技发展基金面上项目(YGM1110) |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 3647 |
| 全文下载次数: 2810 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 比较磁导航指导下心房颤动导管消融与手动消融时辐射剂量的差异.方法 连续收住入院的94例行房颤(AF)导管消融术患者,前60例为手动消融组(CON组),后34例为磁导航(MNS)指导下导管消融组(MNS组).对比两组患者的皮肤表面累积入射剂量(CD)、剂量面积乘积(DAP)、透视时间,以及医护人员的辐射剂量和透视时间.结果 MNS组和CON组两组患者的CD值分别为 (0.54±0.45)和(1.61±0.89)Gy (t=2.44,P<0.05),DAP值为(46.86±27.09)和(139.71±76.69)Gy·cm2(t=3.89,P<0.05),透视时间为(15.60±7.52)和(39.50±8.82) min (t=1.96,P<0.05).两组手术医师辐射剂量分别为(22.68±6.87)和(62.74±20.92)μSv(t=2.02,P<0.05),透视时间为(11.48±7.59)和(30.50±14.82)min(t=2.75,P<0.05),助手辐射剂量为(19.38±5.64)和(49.42±10.67)μSv(t=3.58,P<0.05)、透视时间为(8.96±5.88)和(24.49±9.09)min(t=4.20,P<0.05),护士辐射剂量为(18.98±4.99)和(47.77±13.65)μSv(t=3.17,P<0.05)、透视时间为(8.33±6.35)和(22.99±13.36)min(t=2.76,P<0.05).结论 与手动消融相比,磁导航指导下心房颤动导管消融具有明显减少医患辐射剂量的优点. |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To compare the X-ray radiation dose from atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation guided by magnetic navigation system (MNS) and manual procedure (CON). Methods 94 AF patients were randomly divided into MNS group (34 cases) and CON group(60 cases). The dose area product (DAP), cumulative radiation dose (CD), fluoroscopy time of patients, the X-ray exposure time and dose of operators were recorded and analyzed. Results The results from the patients in MNS group and CON group were CD values (0.54±0.45) and (1.61±0.89) Gy (t=2.44,P<0.05), DAP values (46.86±27.09) and (139.71±76.69) Gy·cm2(t=3.89,P<0.05) and fluoroscopy time (15.60±7.52) and (39.50±8.82) min (t=1.96,P<0.05), respectively. The X-ray exposure dose in both groups were (22.68±6.87) and (62.74±20.92) μSv (t=2.02,P<0.05) for operation doctor (19.38±5.64) and (49.42±10.67) μSv (t=3.58, P<0.05) for operation assistant and (18.98±4.99) and (47.77±13.65) μSv (t=3.17,P<0.05) for nurse, respectively. The X-ray exposure time experienced in both groups were (11.48±7.59) and (30.50±14.82) min (t=2.75,P<0.05) for operation doctor, (8.96±5.88) and (24.49±9.09) min (t=4.20,P<0.05) for operation assistant and (8.33±6.35) and (22.99±13.36) min(t=2.76,P<0.05) for nurse, respectively. Conclusions Compared with manual procedure, the MNS applied in AF ablation has the potential to decrease X-ray exposure dose. |
| HTML 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|