Search

Electrical storm due to the development of repetitive sustained ventricular tachycardias (VT) is a potentially life-threatening clinical entity. Acute catheter ablation can be lifesaving. Electrical storm (ES) can be characterized as a period of severe cardiac electrical instability manifested by recurrent ventricular arrhythmias. ES adversely affects short and long term prognosis. The highest mortality risk is in the first 3 months after the occurrence of the index event as shown by the AVID trial. The appearance of a ventricular tachycardia (VT) storm is associated with a rather high mortality despite the presence of an internal cardioverter defibrillator. Catheter ablation (CA) in VT storm is evolving as a standard of care therapy. The increased utilization of CA is partly driven by data suggesting that ICD shocks may be associated with increased mortality, partly due to the limited possibilities and adverse events of medical therapy. The aim of this review is to summarize recent advances in CA of VTs in emergency setting.

Remote magnetic navigation (RMN)-guided catheter ablation (CA) is a feasible treatment option for patients presenting with ischemic ventricular tachycardia (VT). Catheter-tissue contact feedback, enhances lesion formation and may consequently improve CA outcomes. Until recently, contact feedback was unavailable for RMN-guided CA. The novel e-Contact Module (ECM) was developed to continuously monitor and ensure catheter-tissue contact during RMN-guided CA. The present study aims to evaluate the effect of ECM implementation on acute and long-term outcomes in RMN-guided ischemic VT ablation. This retrospective, two-center study included consecutive ischemic VT patients undergoing RMN-guided CA from 2010 to 2017. Baseline clinical data, procedural data, including radiation times, and acute success rates were compared between CA procedures performed with ECM (ECM+) and without ECM (ECM−). One-year VT-free survival was analyzed using Cox-proportional hazards models, adjusting for potential confounders: age, left ventricular function, VT inducibility at baseline and substrate based ablation strategy. The current study included 145 patients (ECM+ N = 25, ECM− N = 120). Significantly lower fluoroscopy times were observed in the ECM+ group (9.5 (IQR 5.3–13.5) versus 12.5 min (IQR 8.0–18.0), P = 0.025). Non-inducibility of the clinical VT at the end of procedure was observed in 92% ECM+ versus 72% ECM− patients (P = 0.19). ECM guidance was associated with significantly lower VT-recurrence rates during 1-year follow-up (16% ECM+ versus 40% ECM−; multivariable HR 0.29, 95%–CI 0.10–0.69, P = 0.021, reference group: ECM−). Contact feedback by the ECM further decreases fluoroscopy exposure and improves VT-free survival in RMN-guided ischemic VT ablation. • Remote magnetic navigation (RMN) is a feasible catheter ablation technique for VTs. • The e-Contact Module (ECM) is a novel catheter-tissue contact technology for RMN. • The ECM continuously monitors and ensures catheter-tissue contact during ablation. • Patients treated with ECM guidance had significantly lower VT-recurrence rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contact Force in Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation Background Poor catheter-to-myocardial contact can lead to ineffective ablation lesions and suboptimal outcome. Contact force (CF) sensing catheters in ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT) ablations have not been studied for their long-term efficacy. Purpose The aim of this study was to compare CF ablation to manual ablation (MAN) and remote magnetic navigation (RMN) ablation for safety and efficacy in acute and long-term outcome. Methods A total of 239 consecutive patients who underwent VT ablation with the use of MAN, CF, or RMN catheters were included in this single-center cohort study from January 2007 until March 2014. The primary endpoints were procedural success, acute major complications, and VT recurrences at follow-up. The median follow-up period was 25 months. Results Acute success was achieved in 182 out of 239 procedures (76%). Acute success in manual ablation, CF ablation and RMN ablation was 71%, 71%, and 86%, respectively (P = 0.03). Major complications occurred in 3.3% and there were less major complications (P = 0.04) in the RMN group. After an initial successful procedure, 66 of 182 patients (36%) had a recurrence during follow-up. This was not significantly different between groups. Using an intention-to-treat analysis, 124 patients (52%) had a recurrence. The recurrence rate was lowest in the RMN group. Conclusion The use of CF sensing catheters did not improve procedural outcome or safety profile in comparison to non-CF sensing ablation in this observational study of ventricular arrhythmia ablations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The role of epicardial substrate ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) as a first-line approach in patients with ischemic heart disease is not clearly defined. Epicardial ablation as a first-line option is standard for patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. Several nonrandomized studies, including studies on patients with ischemic heart disease, have shown that epicardial VT ablation improves outcome but this approach was often used after a failed endocardial approach. The aim of this study is to determine whether a combined endo-epicardial scar homogenization as a first-line approach will improve the outcome of VT ablation.Methods/design: The EPILOGUE study is a multicenter, two-armed, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial. Patients with ischemic heart disease who are referred for VT ablation will be randomly assigned to combined endo-epicardial scar homogenization or endocardial scar homogenization only (control group). The primary outcome is recurrence of sustained VT during a 2-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes include procedural success and safety.Discussion: This study is the first randomized trial that evaluates the role of a combined endo-epicardial scar homogenization versus endocardial scar homogenization for the treatment of ischemic scar-related VT.Trial Registration: NL4816807814v02. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]