Ammar M Killu1, Nishaki Mehta2, Qi Zheng3, Piotr Sobieszczyk3, Usha B Tedrow3, William G Stevenson4, Roy M John5. 1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 2. University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville, VA, USA. 3. Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 4. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1215 21st Ave South, Suite 5209, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA. 5. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1215 21st Ave South, Suite 5209, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA. roy.john@vanderbilt.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cardiomyopathies frequently lead to conduction system disease and/or arrhythmias necessitating device therapy, catheter ablation, or both. Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is avoided with recent right ventricle (RV) lead implants and optimal timing is uncertain. We determined outcomes of EMB at the time of ablation or device implantation procedures. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients undergoing EMB during their electrophysiological procedure between January 2014 and July 2016. EMB was obtained using cephalic/subclavian access prior to device implants or femoral venous/arterial access after ablation procedures. Sites of electrogram (EGM) abnormality and/or scar on imaging were targeted when possible. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (23 male, 59.7 ± 15.1 years) were included. Sixteen had reduced ejection fraction. EMB was performed during device implants in 9, during ablation in 13, and during combined procedures in 3 patients. RV and left ventricle (LV) EMB were obtained in 19 and 6 patients, respectively. 3.9 ± 1.8 samples/patient (median 4) were obtained. EMB yielded a diagnosis in 7 (28%, all RV) patients (4 cardiac implantable electronic device implantation, 2 ablation, and 1 both): cardiac amyloid in 4, lymphocytic myocarditis in 2, and cardiac sarcoid in 1. All 7 patients had imaging or voltage abnormalities in the chamber biopsied. Abnormal but non-diagnostic findings, most commonly fibrotic change, were found in 14 patients. At mean follow-up of 1.1 ± 0.9 years, 5 other patients received a clinical diagnosis (3 cardiac sarcoid, 1 arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy, and 1 Brugada syndrome/arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy overlap syndrome). Two patients developed minor device pocket hematomas and one developed pericardial effusion (underwent concomitant epicardial mapping and ablation for VT). CONCLUSIONS: RV or LV EMB can be performed safely during EP procedures and can assist with diagnosis, influencing management. EGM-guided EMB in patients presenting with scar-related VT was low yield for specific pathologies.
PURPOSE:Cardiomyopathies frequently lead to conduction system disease and/or arrhythmias necessitating device therapy, catheter ablation, or both. Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is avoided with recent right ventricle (RV) lead implants and optimal timing is uncertain. We determined outcomes of EMB at the time of ablation or device implantation procedures. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients undergoing EMB during their electrophysiological procedure between January 2014 and July 2016. EMB was obtained using cephalic/subclavian access prior to device implants or femoral venous/arterial access after ablation procedures. Sites of electrogram (EGM) abnormality and/or scar on imaging were targeted when possible. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (23 male, 59.7 ± 15.1 years) were included. Sixteen had reduced ejection fraction. EMB was performed during device implants in 9, during ablation in 13, and during combined procedures in 3 patients. RV and left ventricle (LV) EMB were obtained in 19 and 6 patients, respectively. 3.9 ± 1.8 samples/patient (median 4) were obtained. EMB yielded a diagnosis in 7 (28%, all RV) patients (4 cardiac implantable electronic device implantation, 2 ablation, and 1 both): cardiac amyloid in 4, lymphocytic myocarditis in 2, and cardiac sarcoid in 1. All 7 patients had imaging or voltage abnormalities in the chamber biopsied. Abnormal but non-diagnostic findings, most commonly fibrotic change, were found in 14 patients. At mean follow-up of 1.1 ± 0.9 years, 5 other patients received a clinical diagnosis (3 cardiac sarcoid, 1 arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy, and 1 Brugada syndrome/arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy overlap syndrome). Two patients developed minor device pocket hematomas and one developed pericardial effusion (underwent concomitant epicardial mapping and ablation for VT). CONCLUSIONS: RV or LV EMB can be performed safely during EP procedures and can assist with diagnosis, influencing management. EGM-guided EMB in patients presenting with scar-related VT was low yield for specific pathologies.
Authors: Andrea Avella; Augusto Pappalardo; Giulia d'Amati; Antonio Dello Russo; Francesco Laurenzi; Massimiliano Mancini; Federica Re; Elisabetta Zachara; Paolo Zecchi; Claudio Tondo Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2007-03-31
Authors: Leslie T Cooper; Kenneth L Baughman; Arthur M Feldman; Andrea Frustaci; Mariell Jessup; Uwe Kuhl; Glenn N Levine; Jagat Narula; Randall C Starling; Jeffrey Towbin; Renu Virmani Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-10-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Peter Seizer; Karin Klingel; Juliane Stickel; Christiane Dorn; Martin Horger; Reinhard Kandolf; Boris Bigalke; Andreas E May; Meinrad Gawaz; Jürgen Schreieck Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2013-04-28 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Glenn M Polin; Haris Haqqani; Wendy Tzou; Mathew D Hutchinson; Fermin C Garcia; David J Callans; Erica S Zado; Francis E Marchlinski Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2010-11-27 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Jackson J Liang; Virginia B Hebl; Christopher V DeSimone; Malini Madhavan; Sudip Nanda; Suraj Kapa; Joseph J Maleszewski; William D Edwards; Guy Reeder; Leslie T Cooper; Samuel J Asirvatham Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 12.035