Eyal Nof1, Tobias Reichlin2, Alan D Enriquez3, Justin Ng3, Koichi Nagashima3, Michifumi Tokuda3, Chirag Barbhaiya3, Roy M John3, Gregory F Michaud3, Usha Tedrow3, Wendy Gross4, William G Stevenson3. 1. Leviev Heart Center, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel; Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: eyal.nof@sheba.health.gov.il. 2. Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 3. Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Cardiac Anesthesia, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) may be performed with general anesthesia (GA) or conscious sedation; however, comparative data are limited. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to assess the effects of GA on VT inducibility and stability. METHODS: A retrospective comparison of 226 patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation for scar-related VT under GA or intravenous conscious sedation was performed. Data were then prospectively collected in 73 patients undergoing noninvasive programmed stimulation (NIPS) while awake, followed by GA and invasive programmed stimulation for VT induction. RESULTS: In the retrospective study, groups did not differ in VT inducibility, complications, or abolition of clinical VT. Intravenous hemodynamic support was used more often in the GA group. In the prospective group, 12 patients (16%) were noninducible with NIPS. Of the 61 patients with inducible VT with NIPS, 5 (8%) were noninducible with GA, 25 (41%) were inducible with more aggressive simulation, and 31 (51%) were inducible with the same or less aggressive stimulation. Of the 56 patients who were inducible with NIPS and under GA, 28 (50%) had the same induced VTs and 28 (50%) had different induced VTs. In 23 of 56 patients, the clinical VT morphology was known. The clinical VT was reproduced with NIPS in 17 of 23 patients (74%) and under GA in 13 of 23 patients (59%). Under GA, nonclinical VTs were more often induced in patients with a lower ejection fraction and nonischemic cardiomyopathy. CONCLUSION: GA does not prevent inducible VT in the majority of patients. GA is associated with an increased use of hemodynamic support, but this did not adversely affect VT stability or procedure outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) may be performed with general anesthesia (GA) or conscious sedation; however, comparative data are limited. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to assess the effects of GA on VT inducibility and stability. METHODS: A retrospective comparison of 226 patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation for scar-related VT under GA or intravenous conscious sedation was performed. Data were then prospectively collected in 73 patients undergoing noninvasive programmed stimulation (NIPS) while awake, followed by GA and invasive programmed stimulation for VT induction. RESULTS: In the retrospective study, groups did not differ in VT inducibility, complications, or abolition of clinical VT. Intravenous hemodynamic support was used more often in the GA group. In the prospective group, 12 patients (16%) were noninducible with NIPS. Of the 61 patients with inducible VT with NIPS, 5 (8%) were noninducible with GA, 25 (41%) were inducible with more aggressive simulation, and 31 (51%) were inducible with the same or less aggressive stimulation. Of the 56 patients who were inducible with NIPS and under GA, 28 (50%) had the same induced VTs and 28 (50%) had different induced VTs. In 23 of 56 patients, the clinical VT morphology was known. The clinical VT was reproduced with NIPS in 17 of 23 patients (74%) and under GA in 13 of 23 patients (59%). Under GA, nonclinical VTs were more often induced in patients with a lower ejection fraction and nonischemic cardiomyopathy. CONCLUSION: GA does not prevent inducible VT in the majority of patients. GA is associated with an increased use of hemodynamic support, but this did not adversely affect VT stability or procedure outcomes.
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: 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: Xiao Liu; Perry L Rabin; Yuan Yuan; Awaneesh Kumar; Peter Vasallo; Johnson Wong; Gloria A Mitscher; Thomas H Everett; Peng-Sheng Chen Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2019-06-25 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Neal S Gerstein; Andrew Young; Peter M Schulman; Eric C Stecker; Peter M Jessel Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 5.501