4.0 Review

Anesthetic Management in Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Tachycardia

Journal

TEXAS HEART INSTITUTE JOURNAL
Volume 43, Issue 6, Pages 496-502

Publisher

TEXAS HEART INST
DOI: 10.14503/THIJ-15-5688

Keywords

Anesthesia/methods; catheter ablation/methods/standards; electrophysiologic techniques; cardiac/methods; epicardial mapping/methods; heartassist devices; postoperative complications/prevention & control; risk factors; tachycardia/etiology/physiopathology/therapy; tachycardia; ventricular/complications/physiopathology/prevention & control

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Radiofrequency catheter ablation is increasingly being used to treat patients who have ventricular tachycardia, and anesthesiologists frequently manage their perioperative care. This narrative review is intended to familiarize anesthesiologists with preprocedural, intraprocedural, and postprocedural implications of this ablation. Ventricular tachycardia typically arises from structural heart disease, most often from scar tissue after myocardial infarction. Many patients thus affected will benefit from radiofrequency catheter ablation in the electrophysiology laboratory to ablate the foci of arrhythmogenesis. The pathophysiology of ventricular tachycardia is complex, as are the technical aspects of mapping and ablating these arrhythmias. Patients often have substantial comorbidities and tenuous hemodynamic status, necessitating pharmacologic and mechanical cardiopulmonary support. General anesthesia and monitored anesthesia care, when used for sedation during ablation, can lead to drug interactions and side effects in the presence of ventricular tachycardia, so anesthesiologists should also be aware of potential perioperative complications. We discuss variables that can help anesthesiologists safely guide patients through the challenges of radiofrequency catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available