BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation of hemodynamically unstable ventricular tachycardia (VT) is possible with mechanical circulatory support (MCS), little is known regarding the relative safety and efficacy of different supporting devices for such procedures. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixteen consecutive patients (aged 63 ± 11 years with left ventricular ejection fraction of 20 ± 9%) who underwent ablation of hemodynamically unstable VT were included in this study. Hemodynamic support included percutaneous (Impella® 2.5, n = 5) and implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs, n = 6) and peripheral cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB, n = 5). Except for 2 Impella cases, hemodynamic support was adequate (with consistent mean arterial pressure of > 60 mmHg) to permit sufficient activation mapping for ablation. In the Impella and CPB groups, mean time under hemodynamic support was 185 ± 86 min, and time in VT was 78 ± 36 min. Clinical VT could be terminated at least once by ablation in all patients except 1 case with Impella due to hemodynamic instability. Peri-procedural complications included hemolysis in 1 patient with Impella and surgical intervention for percutaneous Impella placement problems in another 2. The median number of appropriately delivered defibrillator therapies was significantly decreased from 6 in the month before VT ablation to 0 in the month following ablation (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that peripheral CPB and implantable LVAD provide adequate hemodynamic support for successful ablation of unstable VT. Impella® 2.5, on the other hand, was associated with increased risk of complications, and may not provide sufficient hemodynamic support in some cases.
BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation of hemodynamically unstable ventricular tachycardia (VT) is possible with mechanical circulatory support (MCS), little is known regarding the relative safety and efficacy of different supporting devices for such procedures. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixteen consecutive patients (aged 63 ± 11 years with left ventricular ejection fraction of 20 ± 9%) who underwent ablation of hemodynamically unstable VT were included in this study. Hemodynamic support included percutaneous (Impella® 2.5, n = 5) and implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs, n = 6) and peripheral cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB, n = 5). Except for 2 Impella cases, hemodynamic support was adequate (with consistent mean arterial pressure of > 60 mmHg) to permit sufficient activation mapping for ablation. In the Impella and CPB groups, mean time under hemodynamic support was 185 ± 86 min, and time in VT was 78 ± 36 min. Clinical VT could be terminated at least once by ablation in all patients except 1 case with Impella due to hemodynamic instability. Peri-procedural complications included hemolysis in 1 patient with Impella and surgical intervention for percutaneous Impella placement problems in another 2. The median number of appropriately delivered defibrillator therapies was significantly decreased from 6 in the month before VT ablation to 0 in the month following ablation (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that peripheral CPB and implantable LVAD provide adequate hemodynamic support for successful ablation of unstable VT. Impella® 2.5, on the other hand, was associated with increased risk of complications, and may not provide sufficient hemodynamic support in some cases.
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: Chris Healy; Juan F Viles-Gonzalez; Frederic Sacher; James O Coffey; Andre d'Avila Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 2.931
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