BACKGROUND: Although multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) can assess the structural substrate of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), non-ICM (NICM), and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), the usefulness of systematic image integration during VT ablation remains undetermined. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 116 consecutive patients (67 ICM; 30 NICM; 19 ARVC) underwent VT ablation with image integration (MDCT 91%; CMR 30%; both 22%). Substrate was defined as wall thinning on MDCT and late gadolinium-enhancement on CMR in ICM/NICM, and as myocardial hypo-attenuation on MDCT in ARVC. This substrate was compared to mapping and ablation results with the endpoint of complete elimination of local abnormal ventricular activity (LAVA), and the impact of image integration on procedural management was analyzed. Imaging-derived substrate identified 89% of critical VT isthmuses and 85% of LAVA, and was more efficient in identifying LAVA in ICM and ARVC than in NICM (90% and 90% vs. 72%, P < 0.0001), and when defined from CMR than MDCT (ICM: 92% vs. 88%, P = 0.026, NICM: 88% vs. 72%, P < 0.001). Image integration motivated additional mapping and epicardial access in 57% and 33% of patients. Coronary and phrenic nerve integration modified epicardial ablation strategy in 43% of patients. The impact of image integration on procedural management was higher in ARVC/NICM than in ICM (P < 0.01), and higher in case of epicardial approach (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Image integration is feasible in large series of patients, provides information on VT substrate, and impacts procedural management, particularly in ARVC/NICM, and in case of epicardial approach.
BACKGROUND: Although multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) can assess the structural substrate of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), non-ICM (NICM), and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), the usefulness of systematic image integration during VT ablation remains undetermined. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 116 consecutive patients (67 ICM; 30 NICM; 19 ARVC) underwent VT ablation with image integration (MDCT 91%; CMR 30%; both 22%). Substrate was defined as wall thinning on MDCT and late gadolinium-enhancement on CMR in ICM/NICM, and as myocardial hypo-attenuation on MDCT in ARVC. This substrate was compared to mapping and ablation results with the endpoint of complete elimination of local abnormal ventricular activity (LAVA), and the impact of image integration on procedural management was analyzed. Imaging-derived substrate identified 89% of critical VT isthmuses and 85% of LAVA, and was more efficient in identifying LAVA in ICM and ARVC than in NICM (90% and 90% vs. 72%, P < 0.0001), and when defined from CMR than MDCT (ICM: 92% vs. 88%, P = 0.026, NICM: 88% vs. 72%, P < 0.001). Image integration motivated additional mapping and epicardial access in 57% and 33% of patients. Coronary and phrenic nerve integration modified epicardial ablation strategy in 43% of patients. The impact of image integration on procedural management was higher in ARVC/NICM than in ICM (P < 0.01), and higher in case of epicardial approach (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Image integration is feasible in large series of patients, provides information on VT substrate, and impacts procedural management, particularly in ARVC/NICM, and in case of epicardial approach.
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: Tuna Ustunkaya; Benoit Desjardins; Riley Wedan; C Anwar A Chahal; Stefan L Zimmerman; Nissi Saju; Sohail Zahid; Apurva Sharma; Yuchi Han; Natalia Trayanova; Francis E Marchlinski; Hugh Calkins; Harikrishna Tandri; Saman Nazarian Journal: JACC Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2019-08-28
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: Ahmadreza Karimianpour; Patrick Badertscher; Joshua Payne; Michael Field; Michael R Gold; Jeffrey R Winterfield Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Konstantinos N Aronis; Rheeda L Ali; Jonathan Chrispin; Natalia A Trayanova; Adityo Prakosa; Hiroshi Ashikaga; Ronald D Berger; Joe B Hakim; Jialiu Liang; Harikrishna Tandri; Fei Teng Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2020-03-19