Search

BackgroundThere is a paucity of data on biophysical parameters during radiofrequency ablation of scar-mediated ventricular tachycardia (VT).Methods and resultsData were collected from consecutive patients undergoing VT ablation with open-irrigation. Complete data were available for 372 lesions in 21 patients. The frequency of biophysical parameter changes were: >10Ω reduction (80%), bipolar EGM reduction (69%), while loss of capture was uncommon (32%). Unipolar injury current was seen in 72% of radiofrequency applications. Both EGM reduction and impedance drop were seen in 57% and a change in all 3 parameters was seen in only 20% of lesions. Late potentials were eliminated in 33%, reduced/modified in 56%, and remained after ablation in 11%. Epicardial lesions exhibited an impedance drop (90% vs. 76%, P = 0.002) and loss of capture (46% vs. 27%, P < 0.001) more frequently than endocardial lesions. Lesions delivered manually exhibited a >10Ω impedance drop (83% vs. 71%, P = 0.02) and an EGM reduction (71% vs. 40%, P < 0.001) more frequently than lesions applied using magnetic navigation, although loss of capture, elimination of LPs, and a change in all 3 parameters were similarly observed.ConclusionsVT ablation is inefficient as the majority of radiofrequency lesions do not achieve more than one targeted biophysical parameter. Only one-third of RF applications targeted at LPs result in complete elimination. Epicardial ablation within scar may be more effective than endocardial lesions, and lesions applied manually may be more effective than lesions applied using magnetic navigation. New technologies directed at identifying and optimizing ablation effectiveness in scar are clinically warranted.

Clinical Outcome of Single- versus Dual-Chamber ICDs Objective To compare the clinical outcomes of a single- versus dual-chamber ICD for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in a large, national ICD registry. Methods Data were collected from the prospective Israeli ICD Registry. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes including mortality, admissions for heart failure (HF), and ICD therapy were compared between the two groups. Results A total of 1,125 subjects, 37% with a single-chamber and 63% with a dual-chamber ICD, constructed the baseline cohort. Approximately 80% had ischemic heart disease (IHD). Mean follow-up was 22 months, mean ejection fraction was 30%, and mean QRS width was 103 milliseconds in both groups. During follow-up, there were no significant differences in the rate of mortality, admissions for HF, appropriate or inappropriate therapy, or in time to any of the clinical outcomes. Using multivariate analysis, single-chamber ICD was not associated with increased risk of death or admission for HF. In a subgroup of patients with IHD, single-chamber ICD was associated with a higher rate of inappropriate therapy. Conclusions In this large retrospective population-based cohort, dual-chamber ICD showed no benefit in reducing the incidence of death or HF admissions, whereas in a subgroup of patients with IHD, single-chamber ICD was associated with increased inappropriate therapy. Further prospective studies are necessary to assess the benefit of dual-chamber ICD in reducing the rate of inappropriate therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]