Petra Maagh1, Arnd Christoph2, Markus Sebastian Müller2, Henning Dopp2, Gunnar Plehn3,4, Axel Meissner2,4. 1. Department of Cardiology, Electrophysiology and Intensive Care, Klinikum Merheim, University Witten/Herdecke/Germany, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany. maaghp@rub.de. 2. Department of Cardiology, Electrophysiology and Intensive Care, Klinikum Merheim, University Witten/Herdecke/Germany, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany. 3. Department of Cardiology, Malteser Krankenhaus St. Anna, Albertus-Magnus-Straße 33, 47259, Duisburg, Germany. 4. Ruhr-University of Bochum, Universitätsstrasse 150, 44801, Bochum, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was conducted with the purpose of determining whether or not the potential technical advantages of multi-electrode mapping catheters in catheter ablation (CA) of ventricular tachycardia (VT) result in any relevant clinical benefit for VT patients. METHODS: A single-center VT study, having taken place from 2012 to 2014 using a standard 3.5-mm catheter (Thermocool SF® group 1) and from 2014 to 2016 using a 1-mm multi-electrode-mapping catheter (PentaRay® group 2), was conducted. The endpoint was the complete elimination of late potentials (LPs), local abnormal ventricular activities (LAVA), and VT non-inducibility. Follow-up consisted of device interrogation to monitor for VT recurrence. RESULTS: Out of 74 VT patients aged 64.5 ± 12.0 years (66 male [89.2%], 56 with ICM [75.7%], and 18 with NICM [24.3%)]), 48 patients (64.9%) were investigated in group 1 and 26 (35.1%) in group 2. Using the multi-point acquisition approach, a tendency to require less mapping time (group 1 65.2 ± 37.6 min, group 2 55.6 ± 34.4 min, p ns) was determined. During 12-month follow-up, 57 patients had freedom from VT recurrences (79.2%). The result was insignificant between the groups (38 patients (79.2%) in group 1 and 19 patients (73.1%) in group 2). CONCLUSIONS: In a single-center observational study, both conventional and high-density mapping approaches in VT patients are comparable in terms of procedure duration and outcome. Mapping time when using a multi-electrode catheter seems to have the tendency of being shorter. We should be encouraged to recruit more patients comparing the benefit of different catheter types.
PURPOSE: This study was conducted with the purpose of determining whether or not the potential technical advantages of multi-electrode mapping catheters in catheter ablation (CA) of ventricular tachycardia (VT) result in any relevant clinical benefit for VTpatients. METHODS: A single-center VT study, having taken place from 2012 to 2014 using a standard 3.5-mm catheter (Thermocool SF® group 1) and from 2014 to 2016 using a 1-mm multi-electrode-mapping catheter (PentaRay® group 2), was conducted. The endpoint was the complete elimination of late potentials (LPs), local abnormal ventricular activities (LAVA), and VT non-inducibility. Follow-up consisted of device interrogation to monitor for VT recurrence. RESULTS: Out of 74 VTpatients aged 64.5 ± 12.0 years (66 male [89.2%], 56 with ICM [75.7%], and 18 with NICM [24.3%)]), 48 patients (64.9%) were investigated in group 1 and 26 (35.1%) in group 2. Using the multi-point acquisition approach, a tendency to require less mapping time (group 1 65.2 ± 37.6 min, group 2 55.6 ± 34.4 min, p ns) was determined. During 12-month follow-up, 57 patients had freedom from VT recurrences (79.2%). The result was insignificant between the groups (38 patients (79.2%) in group 1 and 19 patients (73.1%) in group 2). CONCLUSIONS: In a single-center observational study, both conventional and high-density mapping approaches in VTpatients are comparable in terms of procedure duration and outcome. Mapping time when using a multi-electrode catheter seems to have the tendency of being shorter. We should be encouraged to recruit more patients comparing the benefit of different catheter types.
Authors: Roderick Tung; Marmar Vaseghi; David S Frankel; Pasquale Vergara; Luigi Di Biase; Koichi Nagashima; Ricky Yu; Sitaram Vangala; Chi-Hong Tseng; Eue-Keun Choi; Shaan Khurshid; Mehul Patel; Nilesh Mathuria; Shiro Nakahara; Wendy S Tzou; William H Sauer; Kairav Vakil; Usha Tedrow; J David Burkhardt; Venkatakrishna N Tholakanahalli; Anastasios Saliaris; Timm Dickfeld; J Peter Weiss; T Jared Bunch; Madhu Reddy; Arun Kanmanthareddy; David J Callans; Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy; Andrea Natale; Francis Marchlinski; William G Stevenson; Paolo Della Bella; Kalyanam Shivkumar Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2015-05-30 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Mathew D Hutchinson; Edward P Gerstenfeld; Benoit Desjardins; Rupa Bala; Michael P Riley; Fermin C Garcia; Sanjay Dixit; David Lin; Wendy S Tzou; Joshua M Cooper; Ralph J Verdino; David J Callans; Francis E Marchlinski Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2010-12-03
Authors: K Soejima; M Suzuki; W H Maisel; C B Brunckhorst; E Delacretaz; L Blier; S Tung; H Khan; W G Stevenson Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-08-07 Impact factor: 29.690
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
Authors: Arian Sultan; Barbara Bellmann; Jakob Lüker; Tobias Plenge; Jan-Hendrik van den Bruck; Karlo Filipovic; Susanne Erlhöfer; Liz Kuffer; Zeynep Arica; Daniel Steven Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2019-03-07 Impact factor: 1.900