Search

Percutaneous epicardial access (EpiAcc) is used in an attempt to improve outcomes of ablation. We aim to report our experience in EpiAcc for management of symptomatic ventricular premature complexes (VPC) and ventricular tachycardia (VT). All patients from January 2004 to July 2014 who underwent EpiAcc as part of a VPC or VT ablation procedure were included. Outcomes between those with endocardial-only (Gp1) and endocardial/epicardial (Gp2) ablation and those for VPC and VT ablation were compared. EpiAcc for VPC or VT ablation was attempted in 173 patients; 10 patients were excluded because of failure of access (n = 7) or no ablation performed (n = 3). Of the remaining 163, 131 patients (80.4%) had undergone previous endocardial ablation. Mean age was 53.7 ± 15.7 years; 115 (71%) were men. VT ablation was the indication in 105 patients (64%). The underlying substrate was predominately nonischemic cardiomyopathy (49.1%). Epicardial ablation was performed in 115 (70.6%). Procedural and clinical success was obtained in 92.0% and 69.9% of patients, respectively, with no difference between Gp1 and Gp2. Those who underwent VPC ablation had superior clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up. EpiAcc is feasible in almost all patients with no previous cardiac surgery and permits acute procedural success in >90% of patients, most of whom had failed previous ablation. However, epicardial ablation was not delivered in 1/3 of patients. Epicardial mapping may be helpful as in the absence of an appropriate epicardial site for ablation, and focus can be shifted to more detailed endocardial mapping and ablation., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to examine patient-level discordance between population percentiles of non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)., Background: Non-HDL-C is an alternative to LDL-C for risk stratification and lipid-lowering therapy. The justification for the present guideline-based non-HDL-C cutpoints of 30 mg/dl higher than the LDL-C cutpoints remains largely untested., Methods: We assigned population percentiles to non-HDL-C and Friedewald-estimated LDL-C values of 1,310,440 U.S. adults with triglyceride levels <400 mg/dl who underwent lipid testing by vertical spin density gradient ultracentrifugation (Atherotech, Birmingham, Alabama) from 2009 to 2011., Results: LDL-C cutpoints of 70, 100, 130, 160, and 190 mg/dl were in the same population percentiles as non-HDL-C values of 93, 125, 157, 190, and 223 mg/dl, respectively. Non-HDL-C values reclassified a significant proportion of patients within or to a higher treatment category compared with Friedewald LDL-C values, especially at LDL-C levels in the treatment range of high-risk patients and at triglyceride levels ≥150 mg/dl. Of patients with LDL-C levels <70 mg/dl, 15% had a non-HDL-C level ≥ 100 mg/dl (guideline-based cutpoint) and 25% had a non-HDL-C level ≥ 93 mg/dl (percentile-based cutpoint); if triglyceride levels were 150 to 199 mg/dl concurrently, these values were 22% and 50%, respectively., Conclusions: There is significant patient-level discordance between non-HDL-C and LDL-C percentiles at lower LDL-C and higher triglyceride levels, which has implications for the treatment of high-risk patients. Current non-HDL-C cutpoints for high-risk patients may need to be lowered to match percentiles of LDL-C cutpoints. Relatively small absolute reductions in non-HDL-C cutpoints result in substantial reclassification of patients to higher treatment categories with potential implications for risk assessment and treatment., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)