| Literature DB >> 27773399 |
Abhijeet B Shelke1, Rajeev Menon2, Anuj Kapadiya2, Sachin Yalagudri1, Daljeet Saggu1, Sandeep Nair1, C Narasimhan3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Alcohol septal ablation (ASA) is a therapeutic alternative to surgical myectomy in patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM). However, the anatomical variability of the septal branch, risk of complete heart block, and late onset ventricular arrhythmias are limitations to its therapeutic usage. There is recent interest in the use of radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) as a therapeutic option in HOCM. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of RFCA in the treatment of symptomatic HOCM.Entities:
Keywords: Alcohol septal ablation; Hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy; Left ventricular outflow tract; Radiofrequency ablation
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27773399 PMCID: PMC5079133 DOI: 10.1016/j.ihj.2016.02.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian Heart J ISSN: 0019-4832
Fig. 1CARTO-guided 3D anatomical map of LV with three pressure zones and radiofrequency ablation lesions. (A) The three pressure zones in 3-D CARTO LAO view with their corresponding pressure tracings. Yellow dots indicate the site of conduction system signals. The insert shows A-H-V signals (Site of left side His bundle). The gray color indicates the area of normal pressure zone with no difference in gradient observed in the pressure tracing. Pink zone reflects transition zone and purple, high pressure zone with corresponding pressure tracings. Note that in (B), the RF lesions (red dots) are delivered in the transition zone, away from the conduction system (yellow dots).
Fig. 2Intracardiac echocardiographic images during radiofrequency catheter ablation. (A) Arrow shows that catheter tip is not in proper contact with septum. In this situation radiofrequency lesion delivery may not be effective. (B) Arrow shows firm contact of the catheter tip with the hypertrophied septum.
Patients’ clinical and echocardiographic characteristics.
| No | Age (years) | Sex | Septal anatomy | Number of RF lesions | LVOT gradient | LVOT gradient after RFCA (mmHg) | NYHA class at baseline | NYHA class post RFCA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 month | 6 months | 12 months | ||||||||
| 1 | 42 | M | Small | 25 | 100 | 30 | 30 | 17 | III | I |
| 2 | 36 | M | Abnormal MEC | 29 | 95 | 80 | 72 | 40 | III | II |
| 3 | 62 | M | Single coronary | 17 | 90 | 45 | 48 | 38 | III | I |
| 4 | 62 | F | Abnormal MEC | 16 | 65 | 30 | 35 | 30 | III | I |
| 5 | 31 | F | Small | 34 | 84 | 77 | 70 | 65 | III | II |
| 6 | 21 | M | Abnormal MEC | 22 | 67 | 53 | 66 | 90 | III | III |
| 7 | 52 | M | Abnormal MEC | 13 | 66 | 25 | 28 | 20 | III | I |
MEC: myocardial echocardiographic contrast; RF: radiofrequency; LVOT: left ventricular outflow tract obstruction; RFCA: radiofrequency catheter ablation.
Maximum gradient obtained either at rest or with Valsalva maneuver.
Fig. 3LVOT gradient of individual patients at 1-month, 6-month, and 12-month followup.