4.5 Article

Epicardial Ablation for Ventricular Tachycardia A European Multicenter Study

Journal

CIRCULATION-ARRHYTHMIA AND ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 4, Issue 5, Pages 653-659

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCEP.111.962217

Keywords

ventricular tachycardia; radiofrequency catheter ablation; percutaneous epicardial mapping

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background-The purpose of this study was to describe the epicardial percutaneous ablation experience of 6 European high-volume ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation centers. Methods and Results-Data from 218 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD, n=85 [39.0%]), idiopathic dilated of patients with idiopathic VT cardiomyopathy (IDCM, n=67 [30.7%]), arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy (ARCD/C, n=13 [6%]), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM, n=5 [2.3%]), and absence of structural heart disease (n=48 [22%]) undergoing epicardial subxyphoid access for VT ablation were collected. The epicardial approach was attempted as first-line treatment in 78 patients (35.8%). Acute prevention of VT inducibility was obtained in 156 patients (71.6%). There were no procedure-related deaths. Cardiac tamponade occurred in 8 patients, and abdominal hemorrhage in 1 patient. Six patients died of electrical storm recurrence within 48 hours from the procedure. After a mean follow-up of 17.3 +/- 18.2 months, 60 patients (31.4%) presented with VT recurrence (39.3% of IDCM patients; 34.7% of CAD patients; 30.8% of ARVD/C patients; 25% of HCM patients; 17.1% of patients with idiopathic VT). Twenty patients (10.4%) died during follow-up (12 of heart failure, 2 of cardiac arrest, and 6 of extracardiac causes). Conclusions-In experienced centers, epicardial ablation of VT has an acceptable risk and favorable outcome. In selected patients, it is reasonable to consider as a first-line ablation approach. (Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2011;4:653-659.)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available