BACKGROUND: Epicardial ablation has been shown to be a useful adjunct for treatment of ventricular tachycardia (VT). OBJECTIVE: To report the trends, safety, and efficacy of epicardial mapping and ablation at a single center over an 8-year period. METHODS: Patients referred for VT ablation (June 2004 to July 2011) were divided into 3 groups: ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM), and idiopathic ventricular arrhythmias (VA). Patients with scar-mediated VT who underwent combined epicardial and endocardial (epi-endo) mapping and ablation were compared with those who underwent endocardial-only (endo-only) ablation with regard to patient characteristics, acute procedural success, 6- and 12-month clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Among 144 patients referred for VT ablation, 95 patients underwent 109 epicardial procedures (94% access rate). Major complications were seen in 8 patients (8.8%) with pericardial bleeding (>80 cm(3)) in 6 cases (6.7%), although no tamponade, surgical intervention, or procedural mortality was seen. Patients with ICM who underwent a combined epi-endo ablation had improved freedom from VT compared with those who underwent endo-only ablation at 12 months (85% vs 56%; P = .03). In patients with NICM, no differences were seen between those who underwent epi-endo ablation and those who underwent endo-only ablation at 12 months (36% vs 33%; P = 1.0). In idiopathic VA, only 2 of 17 patients were successfully ablated from the epicardium. CONCLUSIONS: In this large tertiary single-center experience, complication rates are acceptably low and improved clinical outcomes were associated with epi-endo ablation in patients with ICM. Patients with NICM represent a growing referred population, although clinical recurrence remains high despite epicardial ablation. Epicardial ablation has a low yield in idiopathic VA.
BACKGROUND: Epicardial ablation has been shown to be a useful adjunct for treatment of ventricular tachycardia (VT). OBJECTIVE: To report the trends, safety, and efficacy of epicardial mapping and ablation at a single center over an 8-year period. METHODS:Patients referred for VT ablation (June 2004 to July 2011) were divided into 3 groups: ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM), and idiopathic ventricular arrhythmias (VA). Patients with scar-mediated VT who underwent combined epicardial and endocardial (epi-endo) mapping and ablation were compared with those who underwent endocardial-only (endo-only) ablation with regard to patient characteristics, acute procedural success, 6- and 12-month clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Among 144 patients referred for VT ablation, 95 patients underwent 109 epicardial procedures (94% access rate). Major complications were seen in 8 patients (8.8%) with pericardial bleeding (>80 cm(3)) in 6 cases (6.7%), although no tamponade, surgical intervention, or procedural mortality was seen. Patients with ICM who underwent a combined epi-endo ablation had improved freedom from VT compared with those who underwent endo-only ablation at 12 months (85% vs 56%; P = .03). In patients with NICM, no differences were seen between those who underwent epi-endo ablation and those who underwent endo-only ablation at 12 months (36% vs 33%; P = 1.0). In idiopathic VA, only 2 of 17 patients were successfully ablated from the epicardium. CONCLUSIONS: In this large tertiary single-center experience, complication rates are acceptably low and improved clinical outcomes were associated with epi-endo ablation in patients with ICM. Patients with NICM represent a growing referred population, although clinical recurrence remains high despite epicardial ablation. Epicardial ablation has a low yield in idiopathic VA.
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: Roderick Tung; Marmar Vaseghi; David S Frankel; Pasquale Vergara; Luigi Di Biase; Koichi Nagashima; Ricky Yu; Sitaram Vangala; Chi-Hong Tseng; Eue-Keun Choi; Shaan Khurshid; Mehul Patel; Nilesh Mathuria; Shiro Nakahara; Wendy S Tzou; William H Sauer; Kairav Vakil; Usha Tedrow; J David Burkhardt; Venkatakrishna N Tholakanahalli; Anastasios Saliaris; Timm Dickfeld; J Peter Weiss; T Jared Bunch; Madhu Reddy; Arun Kanmanthareddy; David J Callans; Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy; Andrea Natale; Francis Marchlinski; William G Stevenson; Paolo Della Bella; Kalyanam Shivkumar Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2015-05-30 Impact factor: 6.343
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
Authors: Alan Sugrue; Ammar M Killu; David O Hodge; Christopher J McLeod; Thomas M Munger; Siva K Mulpuru; Douglas L Packer; Suraj Kapa; Samuel J Asirvatham; Paul A Friedman Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Babak Nazer; Edward P Gerstenfeld; Akiko Hata; Lawrence A Crum; Thomas J Matula Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Toby Rogers; Kanishka Ratnayaka; William H Schenke; Anthony Z Faranesh; Jonathan R Mazal; William W O'Neill; Adam B Greenbaum; Robert J Lederman Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 2.692