BACKGROUND: Monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (MMVT) is rare in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). There are limited data on the utility of catheter ablation for the treatment of MMVT in this population. This study details a series of case reports from multiple centers where combined epicardial-endocardial ablation was performed in a highly selected group of patients with HCM-related MMVT. METHODS AND RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 10 patients with HCM-related MMVT. Pericardial access was achieved using the percutaneous subxyphoid approach. Epicardial and endocardial ventricular 3D bipolar voltage maps were generated. Ablation sites were identified using a combination of entrainment, activation, late/fractionated potential, and pace mapping. Electrophysiological-identified epicardial scar was present in 8 (80%) patients, endocardial scar in 6 (60%), and no scar in 1 (10%). In the 5 patients with inducible, stable MMVT, 3 cases were successfully terminated with ablation from the epicardium and 1 from the endocardium. The case that failed catheter ablation required surgical cryoablation to abolish the incessant VT. In the remaining 5 patients, 4 underwent epicardial and endocardial ablation of sites with good pace maps and late/fractionated potentials. No ablation was performed in the remaining patient because of noninducibility and lack of identifiable scar. After 37±17 months (limits, 2 to 62 months; median, 37 months), the freedom from recurrent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks was 78% (7/9 patients) in those who underwent ablation. CONCLUSIONS: In highly selected patients with HCM, combined epicardial and endocardial mapping and ablation is a feasible and reasonably efficacious option for MMVT if refractory to aggressive trials of antiarrhythmic drugs and antitachycardia pacing.
BACKGROUND: Monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (MMVT) is rare in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). There are limited data on the utility of catheter ablation for the treatment of MMVT in this population. This study details a series of case reports from multiple centers where combined epicardial-endocardial ablation was performed in a highly selected group of patients with HCM-related MMVT. METHODS AND RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 10 patients with HCM-related MMVT. Pericardial access was achieved using the percutaneous subxyphoid approach. Epicardial and endocardial ventricular 3D bipolar voltage maps were generated. Ablation sites were identified using a combination of entrainment, activation, late/fractionated potential, and pace mapping. Electrophysiological-identified epicardial scar was present in 8 (80%) patients, endocardial scar in 6 (60%), and no scar in 1 (10%). In the 5 patients with inducible, stable MMVT, 3 cases were successfully terminated with ablation from the epicardium and 1 from the endocardium. The case that failed catheter ablation required surgical cryoablation to abolish the incessant VT. In the remaining 5 patients, 4 underwent epicardial and endocardial ablation of sites with good pace maps and late/fractionated potentials. No ablation was performed in the remaining patient because of noninducibility and lack of identifiable scar. After 37±17 months (limits, 2 to 62 months; median, 37 months), the freedom from recurrent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks was 78% (7/9 patients) in those who underwent ablation. CONCLUSIONS: In highly selected patients with HCM, combined epicardial and endocardial mapping and ablation is a feasible and reasonably efficacious option for MMVT if refractory to aggressive trials of antiarrhythmic drugs and antitachycardia pacing.
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: Marmar Vaseghi; Tiffany Y Hu; Roderick Tung; Pasquale Vergara; David S Frankel; Luigi Di Biase; Usha B Tedrow; Jeffrey A Gornbein; Ricky Yu; Nilesh Mathuria; Shiro Nakahara; Wendy S Tzou; William H Sauer; J David Burkhardt; Venkatakrishna N Tholakanahalli; Timm-Michael Dickfeld; J Peter Weiss; T Jared Bunch; Madhu Reddy; David J Callans; Dhanunjaya R Lakkireddy; Andrea Natale; Francis E Marchlinski; William G Stevenson; Paolo Della Bella; Kalyanam Shivkumar Journal: JACC Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2018-07-25
Authors: Rajinder P Singh-Moon; Soo Young Park; Diego M Song Cho; Agastya Vaidya; Charles C Marboe; Elaine Y Wan; Christine P Hendon Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Ammar M Killu; Alan M Sugrue; Siva K Mulpuru; Christopher J McLeod; David O Hodge; Peter A Noseworthy; Lisa Fanning; Thomas M Munger; Douglas L Packer; Samuel J Asirvatham; Paul A Friedman Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 1.900