INTRODUCTION: Permanent junctional reciprocating tachycardia (PJRT) is an infrequent form of reciprocating tachycardia, almost incessant from childhood and usually refractory to drug therapy. Radiofrequency catheter ablation currently is the first-line therapy for PJRT, but its application in the septal region may be associated with complications. In contrast, cryoenergy has several advantages, such as the ability to test the effects of ablation while the lesion is still forming, thus reducing the number of ineffective, useless, and potentially harmful lesions. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential clinical utility of percutaneous cryoenergy catheter ablation for treatment of pediatric patients with PJRT. METHODS AND RESULTS: Four patients (age 14 +/- 5 years; mean +/- SD) with a clinical diagnosis of PJRT underwent catheter cryoablation. The ablation was successfully accomplished in 4 (100%) of 4 patients. The mean +/- SD number of cryoapplications was 1.8 +/- 0.8, and from 1 to 6 cryomappings were performed for each permanent cryolesion. The successful site was in the mid-septal region (2 patients), at the coronary sinus orifice (1 patient), and in the middle cardiac vein (1 patient). No complications with cryoablation were reported, nor was there prolongation of the AH interval during cryomapping or cryoablation. No pain was reported by patients during the cryoenergy catheter ablation procedure. PJRT recurrence occurred in 1 patient who underwent a second successful cryoablation procedure. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of cryoenergy catheter ablation in these 4 patients treated for PJRT suggest that cryoablation is a safe, effective, and pain-free technique for treating pediatric patients with PJRT.
INTRODUCTION: Permanent junctional reciprocating tachycardia (PJRT) is an infrequent form of reciprocating tachycardia, almost incessant from childhood and usually refractory to drug therapy. Radiofrequency catheter ablation currently is the first-line therapy for PJRT, but its application in the septal region may be associated with complications. In contrast, cryoenergy has several advantages, such as the ability to test the effects of ablation while the lesion is still forming, thus reducing the number of ineffective, useless, and potentially harmful lesions. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential clinical utility of percutaneous cryoenergy catheter ablation for treatment of pediatric patients with PJRT. METHODS AND RESULTS: Four patients (age 14 +/- 5 years; mean +/- SD) with a clinical diagnosis of PJRT underwent catheter cryoablation. The ablation was successfully accomplished in 4 (100%) of 4 patients. The mean +/- SD number of cryoapplications was 1.8 +/- 0.8, and from 1 to 6 cryomappings were performed for each permanent cryolesion. The successful site was in the mid-septal region (2 patients), at the coronary sinus orifice (1 patient), and in the middle cardiac vein (1 patient). No complications with cryoablation were reported, nor was there prolongation of the AH interval during cryomapping or cryoablation. No pain was reported by patients during the cryoenergy catheter ablation procedure. PJRT recurrence occurred in 1 patient who underwent a second successful cryoablation procedure. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of cryoenergy catheter ablation in these 4 patients treated for PJRT suggest that cryoablation is a safe, effective, and pain-free technique for treating pediatric patients with PJRT.