BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data on biophysical parameters during radiofrequency ablation of scar-mediated ventricular tachycardia (VT). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were collected from consecutive patients undergoing VT ablation with open-irrigation. Complete data were available for 372 lesions in 21 patients. The frequency of biophysical parameter changes were: >10Ω reduction (80%), bipolar EGM reduction (69%), while loss of capture was uncommon (32%). Unipolar injury current was seen in 72% of radiofrequency applications. Both EGM reduction and impedance drop were seen in 57% and a change in all 3 parameters was seen in only 20% of lesions. Late potentials were eliminated in 33%, reduced/modified in 56%, and remained after ablation in 11%. Epicardial lesions exhibited an impedance drop (90% vs. 76%, P = 0.002) and loss of capture (46% vs. 27%, P < 0.001) more frequently than endocardial lesions. Lesions delivered manually exhibited a >10Ω impedance drop (83% vs. 71%, P = 0.02) and an EGM reduction (71% vs. 40%, P < 0.001) more frequently than lesions applied using magnetic navigation, although loss of capture, elimination of LPs, and a change in all 3 parameters were similarly observed. CONCLUSIONS: VT ablation is inefficient as the majority of radiofrequency lesions do not achieve more than one targeted biophysical parameter. Only one-third of RF applications targeted at LPs result in complete elimination. Epicardial ablation within scar may be more effective than endocardial lesions, and lesions applied manually may be more effective than lesions applied using magnetic navigation. New technologies directed at identifying and optimizing ablation effectiveness in scar are clinically warranted.
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data on biophysical parameters during radiofrequency ablation of scar-mediatedventricular tachycardia (VT). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were collected from consecutive patients undergoing VT ablation with open-irrigation. Complete data were available for 372 lesions in 21 patients. The frequency of biophysical parameter changes were: >10Ω reduction (80%), bipolar EGM reduction (69%), while loss of capture was uncommon (32%). Unipolar injury current was seen in 72% of radiofrequency applications. Both EGM reduction and impedance drop were seen in 57% and a change in all 3 parameters was seen in only 20% of lesions. Late potentials were eliminated in 33%, reduced/modified in 56%, and remained after ablation in 11%. Epicardial lesions exhibited an impedance drop (90% vs. 76%, P = 0.002) and loss of capture (46% vs. 27%, P < 0.001) more frequently than endocardial lesions. Lesions delivered manually exhibited a >10Ω impedance drop (83% vs. 71%, P = 0.02) and an EGM reduction (71% vs. 40%, P < 0.001) more frequently than lesions applied using magnetic navigation, although loss of capture, elimination of LPs, and a change in all 3 parameters were similarly observed. CONCLUSIONS:VT ablation is inefficient as the majority of radiofrequency lesions do not achieve more than one targeted biophysical parameter. Only one-third of RF applications targeted at LPs result in complete elimination. Epicardial ablation within scar may be more effective than endocardial lesions, and lesions applied manually may be more effective than lesions applied using magnetic navigation. New technologies directed at identifying and optimizing ablation effectiveness in scar are clinically warranted.
Authors: E Kevin Heist; Conor Barrett; Francesco Perna; Stephan Danik; Jeremy N Ruskin; Moussa Mansour Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2011-02-02
Authors: Michifumi Tokuda; Piotr Sobieszczyk; Andrew C Eisenhauer; Pipin Kojodjojo; Keiichi Inada; Bruce A Koplan; Gregory F Michaud; Roy M John; Laurence M Epstein; Frédéric Sacher; William G Stevenson; Usha B Tedrow Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2011-10-07
Authors: Shiro Nakahara; Roderick Tung; Rafael J Ramirez; Yoav Michowitz; Marmar Vaseghi; Eric Buch; Jean Gima; Isaac Wiener; Aman Mahajan; Noel G Boyle; Kalyanam Shivkumar Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-05-25 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Roderick Tung; Shiro Nakahara; Giuseppe Maccabelli; Eric Buch; Isaac Wiener; Noel G Boyle; Corrado Carbucicchio; Paolo Della Bella; Kalyanam Shivkumar Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2011-01
Authors: Karl-Heinz Kuck; Vivek Y Reddy; Boris Schmidt; Andrea Natale; Petr Neuzil; Nadir Saoudi; Josef Kautzner; Claudia Herrera; Gerhard Hindricks; Pierre Jaïs; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Hendrik Lambert; Dipen C Shah Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2011-08-26 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Pasquale Santangeli; Luigi Di Biase; Dhanunjay Lakkireddy; J David Burkhardt; Jayasree Pillarisetti; Yoav Michowitz; Javier E Sanchez; Rodney Horton; Prasant Mohanty; G Joseph Gallinghouse; Antonio Dello Russo; Michela Casella; Gemma Pelargonio; Pietro Santarelli; Atul Verma; Calambur Narasimhan; Kalyanam Shivkumar; Andrea Natale Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2010-05-19 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Aravinda Thiagalingam; Andre D'Avila; Lori Foley; J Luis Guerrero; Hendrik Lambert; Giovanni Leo; Jeremy N Ruskin; Vivek Y Reddy Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2010-02-01
Authors: Hildegard Tanner; Gerhard Hindricks; Marius Volkmer; Steve Furniss; Volker Kühlkamp; Dominique Lacroix; Christian DE Chillou; Jesús Almendral; Domenico Caponi; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Hans Kottkamp Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2009-07-28