4.2 Article

Bipolar Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation for Refractory Ventricular Outflow Tract Arrhythmias

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 10, Pages 1093-1099

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jce.12460

Keywords

catheter ablation; electroanatomic mapping; ventricular tachycardia

Funding

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia
  2. Biosense Webster

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bipolar Ablation for Outflow Tract VT IntroductionStandard unipolar radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is typically successful in eliminating premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) originating from the ventricular outflow tract region. In a minority of cases, this approach may be ineffective. We report 4 cases where bipolar RFA was attempted after failed unipolar RFA. MethodsFrom a total of 73 consecutive PVC ablations, 4 patients underwent bipolar RFA after failed unipolar ablation. Three-dimensional electroanatomic activation mapping of the right and left ventricular outflow (RVOT and LVOT), coronary sinus, and aortic root was performed. ResultsMean age was 53 22 years, 3 male. The mean 24-hour PVC burden in these patients was 33,107 +/- 8,712. In 3 of 4 patients, the RVOT activation was earlier than the left side. The earliest activation on the left was in the right coronary cusp in 2 patients and left coronary cusp in 2. Unipolar RFA delivered sequentially at the site of earliest RVOT and then earliest aortic cusp sites failed to eradicate the PVCs in all 4 patients. Subsequently, bipolar RFA was applied between irrigated catheters placed at the earliest RVOT and aortic root sites. This approach eliminated PVCs in 3 of 4 (75%) cases. At a median follow-up of 4 months, those with successful bipolar RFA had no recurrence of clinical PVCs. ConclusionsThis report demonstrates the potential utility of bipolar RFA in patients with outflow tract PVCs that fail unipolar RFA.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available