BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency (RF) ablation for ventricular tachycardia (VT) has high failure rates. Whether endocavitary structures (ECS) such as the papillary muscles (PMs), moderator bands (MBs), or false tendons (FTs) impact VT ablation is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively reviewed records of 190 consecutive patients presenting for VT ablation and identified 46 (24%) where ECS affected ablation. In 31 of 46 patients (67%), the ECS created difficulty with catheter manipulation (n = 20), interpretation of pace map data (n = 7), or with accurately defining a scar (n = 4). In 15 of 46 (33%), specific mapping and RF energy delivery targeting the ECS itself was necessary to eliminate the arrhythmia. Detailed electroanatomic mapping was performed in 11 of 15 (73%), noncontact mapping in 3 of 15 (20%), multielectrode catheter mapping in 1 of 15 (7%), and intracardiac ultrasound in 14 of 15 (93%) patients. The ablated ECS was a PM in 5 of 15, the MB in 7 of 15, and an FT in 3 of 15. The arrhythmogenic substrate on the ECS was a focus of automatic tachycardia in 9 of 15 and the slow zone responsible for reentrant arrhythmia in the remaining 6 of 15. Successful elimination of tachycardia without recurrence was obtained in all 15 cases. There was no evidence of valvular damage or disruption of the valvular apparatus. CONCLUSION: During VT ablation procedures, ECS should be considered for specific mapping and targeted ablation. Once recognized, these structures can be successfully targeted for ablation without valve damage.
BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency (RF) ablation for ventricular tachycardia (VT) has high failure rates. Whether endocavitary structures (ECS) such as the papillary muscles (PMs), moderator bands (MBs), or false tendons (FTs) impact VT ablation is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively reviewed records of 190 consecutive patients presenting for VT ablation and identified 46 (24%) where ECS affected ablation. In 31 of 46 patients (67%), the ECS created difficulty with catheter manipulation (n = 20), interpretation of pace map data (n = 7), or with accurately defining a scar (n = 4). In 15 of 46 (33%), specific mapping and RF energy delivery targeting the ECS itself was necessary to eliminate the arrhythmia. Detailed electroanatomic mapping was performed in 11 of 15 (73%), noncontact mapping in 3 of 15 (20%), multielectrode catheter mapping in 1 of 15 (7%), and intracardiac ultrasound in 14 of 15 (93%) patients. The ablated ECS was a PM in 5 of 15, the MB in 7 of 15, and an FT in 3 of 15. The arrhythmogenic substrate on the ECS was a focus of automatic tachycardia in 9 of 15 and the slow zone responsible for reentrant arrhythmia in the remaining 6 of 15. Successful elimination of tachycardia without recurrence was obtained in all 15 cases. There was no evidence of valvular damage or disruption of the valvular apparatus. CONCLUSION: During VT ablation procedures, ECS should be considered for specific mapping and targeted ablation. Once recognized, these structures can be successfully targeted for ablation without valve damage.
Authors: Faisal F Syed; Jo Jo Hai; Nirusha Lachman; Christopher V DeSimone; Samuel J Asirvatham Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Edmond M Cronin; Frank M Bogun; Philippe Maury; Petr Peichl; Minglong Chen; Narayanan Namboodiri; Luis Aguinaga; Luiz Roberto Leite; Sana M Al-Khatib; Elad Anter; Antonio Berruezo; David J Callans; Mina K Chung; Phillip Cuculich; Andre d'Avila; Barbara J Deal; Paolo Della Bella; Thomas Deneke; Timm-Michael Dickfeld; Claudio Hadid; Haris M Haqqani; G Neal Kay; Rakesh Latchamsetty; Francis Marchlinski; John M Miller; Akihiko Nogami; Akash R Patel; Rajeev Kumar Pathak; Luis C Saenz Morales; Pasquale Santangeli; John L Sapp; Andrea Sarkozy; Kyoko Soejima; William G Stevenson; Usha B Tedrow; Wendy S Tzou; Niraj Varma; Katja Zeppenfeld Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Jo Jo Hai; Nirusha Lachman; Faisal F Syed; Christopher V Desimone; Samuel J Asirvatham Journal: Clin Anat Date: 2014-01-20 Impact factor: 2.414
Authors: Paul J Marano; Lisa J Lim; Jose M Sanchez; Raza Alvi; Gregory Nah; Nitish Badhwar; Edward P Gerstenfeld; Zian H Tseng; Gregory M Marcus; Francesca N Delling Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2020-06-06 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Edmond M Cronin; Frank M Bogun; Philippe Maury; Petr Peichl; Minglong Chen; Narayanan Namboodiri; Luis Aguinaga; Luiz Roberto Leite; Sana M Al-Khatib; Elad Anter; Antonio Berruezo; David J Callans; Mina K Chung; Phillip Cuculich; Andre d'Avila; Barbara J Deal; Paolo Della Bella; Thomas Deneke; Timm-Michael Dickfeld; Claudio Hadid; Haris M Haqqani; G Neal Kay; Rakesh Latchamsetty; Francis Marchlinski; John M Miller; Akihiko Nogami; Akash R Patel; Rajeev Kumar Pathak; Luis C Sáenz Morales; Pasquale Santangeli; John L Sapp; Andrea Sarkozy; Kyoko Soejima; William G Stevenson; Usha B Tedrow; Wendy S Tzou; Niraj Varma; Katja Zeppenfeld Journal: Europace Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Adam Kosiński; Dariusz Kozłowski; Janusz Nowiński; Ewa Lewicka; Alicja Dąbrowska-Kugacka; Grzegorz Raczak; Marek Grzybiak Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2010-10-26 Impact factor: 3.318