Search

Background: Cardiac sympathetic denervation (CSD) has been shown to reduce the burden of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks in small series of patients with structural heart disease (SHD) and recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VT)., Objectives: This study assessed the value of CSD and the characteristics associated with outcomes in this population., Methods: Patients with SHD who underwent CSD for refractory VT or VT storm at 5 international centers were analyzed by the International Cardiac Sympathetic Denervation Collaborative Group. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate freedom from ICD shock, heart transplantation, and death. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze variables associated with ICD shock recurrence and mortality after CSD., Results: Between 2009 and 2016, 121 patients (age 55 ± 13 years, 26% female, mean ejection fraction of 30 ± 13%) underwent left or bilateral CSD. One-year freedom from sustained VT/ICD shock and ICD shock, transplant, and death were 58% and 50%, respectively. CSD reduced the burden of ICD shocks from a mean of 18 ± 30 (median 10) in the year before study entry to 2.0 ± 4.3 (median 0) at a median follow-up of 1.1 years (p < 0.01). On multivariable analysis, pre-procedure New York Heart Association functional class III and IV heart failure and longer VT cycle lengths were associated with recurrent ICD shocks, whereas advanced New York Heart Association functional class, longer VT cycle lengths, and a left-sided-only procedure predicted the combined endpoint of sustained VT/ICD shock recurrence, death, and transplantation. Of the 120 patients taking antiarrhythmic medications before CSD, 39 (32%) no longer required them at follow-up., Conclusions: CSD decreased sustained VT and ICD shock recurrence in patients with refractory VT. Characteristics independently associated with recurrence and mortality were advanced heart failure, VT cycle length, and a left-sided-only procedure., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the characteristics and prevalence of late potentials (LP) in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) and ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) etiologies and evaluate their value as targets for catheter ablation., Background: LP are frequently found in post-myocardial infarction scars and are useful ablation targets. The relative prevalence and characteristics of LP in patients with NICM is not well understood., Methods: Thirty-three patients with structural heart disease (NICM, n = 16; ICM, n = 17) referred for catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia were studied. Electroanatomic mapping was performed endocardially (n = 33) and epicardially (n = 19). The LP were defined as low voltage electrograms (<1.5 mV) with onset after the QRS interval. Very late potentials (vLP) were defined as electrograms with onset >100 ms after the QRS., Results: We sampled an average of 564 +/- 449 points and 726 +/- 483 points in the left ventricle endocardium and epicardium, respectively. Mean total low voltage area in patients with ICM was 101 +/- 55 cm(2) and 56 +/- 33 cm(2), endocardial and epicardial, respectively, compared with NICM of 55 +/- 41 cm(2) and 53 +/- 28 cm(2), respectively. Within the total low voltage area, vLP were observed more frequently in ICM than in NICM in endocardium (4.1% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.0003) and epicardium (4.3% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.035). An LP-targeted ablation strategy was effective in ICM patients (82% nonrecurrence at 12 +/- 10 months of follow-up), whereas NICM patients had less favorable outcomes (50% at 15 +/- 13 months of follow-up)., Conclusions: The contribution of scar to the electrophysiological abnormalities targeted for ablation of unstable ventricular tachycardia differs between ICM and NICM. An approach incorporating LP ablation and pace-mapping had limited success in patients with NICM compared with ICM, and alternative ablation strategies should be considered., (Copyright (c) 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)