Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of zero-fluoroscopy (ZF) catheter ablation (CA) for supraventricular tachycardias (SVT). Methods 584 consecutive patients referred to our institution for CA of SVT were analysed. Patients were categorised into two groups; zero-fluoroscopy (ZF) group and conventional fluoroscopy (CF) group. The ZF group was further divided into two subgroups (adults and paediatric). Patient characteristics, procedural information, and follow-up data were compared. Results The ZF group had a higher proportion of paediatric patients (42.2% vs 0.0%; p < 0.001), resulting in a younger age (30.9 ± 20.3 years vs 52.7 ± 16.5 years; p < 0.001) and lower BMI (22.8 ± 5.7 kg/m2 vs 27.0 ± 5.4 kg/m2; p < 0.001). Procedure time was shorter in the ZF group (94.2 ± 50.4 min vs 104.0 ± 54.0 min; p = 0.002). There were no major complications and the rate of minor complications did not differ between groups (0.0% vs 0.4%; p = 0.304). Acute procedural success as well as the long-term success rate when only the index procedure was considered did not differ between groups (92.5% vs 95.4%; p = 0.155; 87.1% vs 89.2%; p = 0.422). When repeated procedures were included, the long-term success rate was higher in the ZF group (98.3% vs 93.5%; p = 0.004). The difference can be partially explained by the operators' preferences. Conclusion The safety and efficacy of ZF procedures in adult and paediatric populations are comparable to that of CF procedures.
Background Atrioventricular (AV) node ablation with biventricular (BiV) pacemaker implantation is a feasible rate control strategy for symptomatic permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) with rapid ventricular response and tachycardia-induced heart failure (HF). However, certain controversy exists since BiV pacing delivers non-physiological ventricular resynchronization and does not return left ventricular (LV) activation times to those seen in individuals with intrinsically narrow QRS. Permanent His bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological alternative to conventional and BiV pacing. By capturing the native conduction system, depolarization of the ventricles through the His-Purkinje system induces normal synchronous ventricular activation. Purpose The aim of the study was to compare short-term outcomes between BiV pacing and HBP after AV node ablation in HF patients with symptomatic permanent AF and narrow QRS. Methods A total of 25 consecutive HF patients with permanent AF and narrow QRS (≤110 ms) who underwent AV node ablation in conjunction with BiV pacing or HBP in our centre were enrolled. Post-implant QRS duration, echocardiographic data, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class were assessed in short-term follow-up. Results Among 25 HF patients (aged 68 ± 7 years, 52% female, QRS 96 ± 9 ms, LVEF 37 ± 7%, NYHA II-IV), 13 received BiV pacing and 12 HBP. Implant and ablation procedures were acutely successful in both groups. In BiV group 1 patient had a LV lead dislodgement and 1 patient in the HBP group had an acute HB lead threshold increase after AV node ablation. In HBP group post-implant QRS duration was shorter compared to BiV (103 ± 15 ms vs. 177 ± 13 ms, p < 0.001). At a median follow-up of 6 months, patients treated with HBP had greater increase in LV ejection fraction compared to BiV (44 ± 10 vs. 37 ± 6, p = 0.045). A trend toward greater reduction of LV volumes (EDV 119 ± 54 ml vs. 153 ± 33 ml, p = 0.07; ESV 75 ± 34 ml vs. 97 ± 26 ml, p = 0.09) and improvement of NYHA class (2.1 ± 0.7 vs. 2.7 ± 0.8, p = 0.08) was also observed in HBP group compared to BiV group. Conclusion In rate control refractory HF patients with permanent AF and narrow QRS atrioventricular node ablation in conjunction with HBP demonstrated superior electrical resynchronization and greater increase in LV ejection fraction compared to BiV pacing. Larger prospective studies are warranted to address clinical outcomes between both pace and ablate strategies.
Ventricular tachycardia (VT) poses a significant risk for sudden death and heart failure exacerbation in patients with ischemic heart disease. Catheter-based radiofrequency ablation is the last treatment option for patients with frequent VT recurrences despite antiarrhythmic drugs. The aim was to present our retrospective catheter ablation data in this group of patients.The majority of 34 patients, who underwent percutaneous endocardial radiofrequency catheter ablation, were male, median age 67.5 years, who presented with electrical storm, had underlying cardiomyopathy after remote inferior wall myocardial infarction and preceding myocardial revascularization procedure, and had been implanted with cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Two ablation methods were used: linear ablation and/or scar homogenization. Acute ablation success (non-inducibility of any VT) was achieved in 59 % of procedures. VT could not be interrupted in 2 (6 %) patients. Pericardial tamponade that needed surgical intervention occurred in one procedure (2 %), and was related to inadvertent perforation of the right ventricular apex with a diagnostic catheter. Seven (20 %) patients died and additional 3 were lost from the median of 31 (6–151, rank) months of follow-up. No late VT recurrences were demonstrated in 20 (59 %) patients, and rare in 4 (12 %). Overall, the ablation procedure was successful in 71 % of patients.Catheter ablation gave very good long-term clinical result in about two-thirds of our patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and frequent VT recurrences. Catheter ablation, preferably with scar homogenization approach, should be considered early to reduce the number of VT episodes and ICD discharges.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.