BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in nonischemic heart diseases can be challenging, and outcomes across different diseases are incompletely defined. The aim of this study was to describe the outcomes after catheter ablation for nonischemic VT in a large cohort and to compare the electrophysiological findings and outcomes according to the type of underlying disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the 891 consecutive patients undergoing catheter ablation for ventricular arrhythmias, 226 patients (52 ± 14 years; 79% men) with sustained VT due to nonischemic heart disease were included. The primary end point was all-cause death or heart transplantation. Secondary end points were a composite of death, heart transplantation, or readmission because of VT recurrence within 1 year of discharge. Underlying heart diseases were dilated cardiomyopathy in 119 (53%), valvular heart disease in 34 (15%), arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy in 37 (16%), congenital heart disease in 16 (7%), cardiac sarcoidosis in 13 (6%), and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in 7 (3%) patients. After ablation, inability to induce any VT was achieved in 55%, and another 20% had inducible VTs modified. Major complications occurred in 5%. Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy had better outcomes than dilated cardiomyopathy for primary (P=0.002) and secondary end points (P=0.004). Sarcoidosis had worse outcome than dilated cardiomyopathy for secondary end point (P=0.002). At 1 year after the last ablation (a mean of 1.4 ± 0.6 procedures, 1-4), freedom from death, heart transplantation, and readmission for VT recurrence were achieved in 173 (77%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recurrent VT due to nonischemic heart disease, catheter ablation is often useful, although the outcome varies according to the nature of the underlying heart disease.
BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in nonischemic heart diseases can be challenging, and outcomes across different diseases are incompletely defined. The aim of this study was to describe the outcomes after catheter ablation for nonischemic VT in a large cohort and to compare the electrophysiological findings and outcomes according to the type of underlying disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the 891 consecutive patients undergoing catheter ablation for ventricular arrhythmias, 226 patients (52 ± 14 years; 79% men) with sustained VT due to nonischemic heart disease were included. The primary end point was all-cause death or heart transplantation. Secondary end points were a composite of death, heart transplantation, or readmission because of VT recurrence within 1 year of discharge. Underlying heart diseases were dilated cardiomyopathy in 119 (53%), valvular heart disease in 34 (15%), arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy in 37 (16%), congenital heart disease in 16 (7%), cardiac sarcoidosis in 13 (6%), and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in 7 (3%) patients. After ablation, inability to induce any VT was achieved in 55%, and another 20% had inducible VTs modified. Major complications occurred in 5%. Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy had better outcomes than dilated cardiomyopathy for primary (P=0.002) and secondary end points (P=0.004). Sarcoidosis had worse outcome than dilated cardiomyopathy for secondary end point (P=0.002). At 1 year after the last ablation (a mean of 1.4 ± 0.6 procedures, 1-4), freedom from death, heart transplantation, and readmission for VT recurrence were achieved in 173 (77%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recurrent VT due to nonischemic heart disease, catheter ablation is often useful, although the outcome varies according to the nature of the underlying heart disease.
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: 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: Takeshi Sasaki; Christopher F Miller; Rozann Hansford; Vadim Zipunnikov; Menekhem M Zviman; Joseph E Marine; David Spragg; Alan Cheng; Harikrishna Tandri; Sunil Sinha; Aravindan Kolandaivelu; Stefan L Zimmerman; David A Bluemke; Gordon F Tomaselli; Ronald D Berger; Henry R Halperin; Hugh Calkins; Saman Nazarian Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2013-11-14