| Literature DB >> 31378121 |
Ghassen Cheniti1,2,3,4, Soumaya Sridi5, Frederic Sacher1,2,3, Arnaud Chaumeil1,2,3, Xavier Pillois1, Masateru Takigawa1,2,3, Antonio Frontera1,2,3, Konstantinos Vlachos1,2,3, Claire A Martin1,2,3, Elvis Teijeira1,2,3, Takeshi Kitamura1,2,3, Anna Lam1,2,3, Felix Bourier1,2,3, Stephane Puyo2,3, Josselin Duchateau1,2,3, Arnaud Denis1,2,3, Thomas Pambrun1,2,3, Remi Chauvel1,2,3, Nicolas Derval1,2,3, François Laurent5, Michel Montaudon5, Meleze Hocini1,2,3, Michel Haissaguerre1,2,3, Pierre Jais1,2,3, Hubert Cochet5,2,3.
Abstract
Background Fat deposition (FD) is part of the healing process after myocardial infarction. The characteristics of FD and its impact on the outcome in patients undergoing ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation have not been thoroughly studied. Methods and Results We studied consecutive patients undergoing post-myocardial infarction VT ablation with pre-procedural cardiac computed tomography. FD was defined as intra-myocardial attenuation ≤ -30 HU on computed tomography. Clinical, anatomical, and post-procedural outcome was assessed in the overall population. Electrophysiological characteristics were assessed is a subgroup of patients with high-density electro-anatomical maps. Sixty-nine patients were included (66±12 years). FD was detected in 44 (64%) patients. The presence of FD related to scar age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.14 per year; P=0.001) and scar extent (OR: 1.27 per segment; P=0.02). On electro-anatomical maps, FD was characterized by lower bipolar amplitude (P<0.001) and prolonged electrogram duration (P<0.001). Although the proportion of local abnormal ventricular activation was similar (P=0.22), local abnormal ventricular activation showed lower amplitude (P<0.001) and were more delayed (P<0.001) in scars with FD. After a mean follow-up of 26 months, patients with FD experienced a worse outcome including all-cause mortality and VT recurrence (70% versus 28%, P log rank=0.009). On multivariate analysis, FD (hazard ratio=2.69; 95% CI, 1.12-6.46; P=0.027) and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (hazard ratio=2.57; 95% CI, 1.13-5.85; P=0.024) were independent predictors of adverse outcomes. Conclusions FD in patients with post-myocardial infarction VT undergoing catheter ablation relates to scar age and size and may be a marker of adverse outcomes including all-cause mortality and VT recurrence.Entities:
Keywords: catheter ablation; computed tomography; fat deposition; myocardial infarction; ventricular tachycardia
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31378121 PMCID: PMC6761638 DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.119.012482
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Am Heart Assoc ISSN: 2047-9980 Impact factor: 5.501
Figure 1Flow diagram. CT indicates computed tomography; VT, ventricular tachycardia.
Patient Characteristics
| Overall Population n=69 | Fat Deposition (+) 44 (64%) | Fat Deposition (−) 25 (35%) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical characteristics | ||||
| Age, y | 66±12 | 66±11 | 65±12 | 0.58 |
| Men | 64 (93%) | 41 (93%) | 23 (92%) | 0.86 |
| Hypertenstion | 36 (52%) | 23 (53%) | 13 (52%) | 0.16 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 15 (23%) | 10 (23%) | 5 (20%) | 0.83 |
| Dyslipidemia | 39 (57%) | 25 (58%) | 14 (56%) | 0.54 |
| Smoking | 18 (26%) | 10 (24%) | 8 (32%) | 0.74 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 28±6 | 28±5 | 29±6 | 0.43 |
| Total cholesterol, mmol/L | 3.9±1.0 | 3.7±0.9 | 4.2±1.0 | 0.09 |
| HDL cholesterol, mmol/L | 1.0±0.4 | 1.0±0.3 | 1.1±0.4 | 0.23 |
| LDL cholesterol, mmol/L | 2.2±0.8 | 2.1±0.7 | 2.4±0.9 | 0.28 |
| Triglyceride, mmol/L | 1.6±0.7 | 1.5±0.6 | 1.6±0.8 | 0.59 |
| Scar age, y | 17±10 | 20±10 | 10±8 | <0.001 |
| 3‐vessel disease | 16 (23%) | 13 (29%) | 3 (12%) | 0.09 |
| CABG | 17 (25%) | 9 (20%) | 8 (32%) | 0.07 |
| PCI | 42 (61%) | 26 (59%) | 16 (64%) | 0.12 |
| ICD | 63 (91%) | 41 (93%) | 22 (88%) | 0.46 |
| CRT | 17 (25%) | 12 (27%) | 5 (21%) | 0.56 |
| Imaging characteristics | ||||
| Scar vascular territory | ||||
| LAD | 51 (74%) | 31 (70%) | 20 (80%) | 0.65 |
| RCA | 30 (44%) | 20 (45%) | 8 (32%) | |
| Cx | 11 (16%) | 9 (20%) | 2 (8%) | |
| Number of scars | ||||
| 1 scar | 48 (70%) | 28 (64%) | 20 (80%) | 0.16 |
| ≥2 scars | 21 (31%) | 16 (36%) | 5 (20%) | |
| Scar extent (n segments) | 5.7±3.2 | 6.5±2.8 | 4.4±3.4 | 0.01 |
| Calcifications | 21 (30%) | 17 (39%) | 4 (16%) | 0.05 |
| LVEDD, mm | 63±10 | 63±10 | 62±9 | 0.61 |
| LVEF, % | 37±11 | 35±10 | 40±11 | 0.09 |
| LVEF <35% | 40 (58%) | 28 (64%) | 12 (48%) | 0.21 |
BMI indicates body mass index; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; Cx, circumflex; HDL, high‐density lipoprotein; ICD, implantable cardioverter defibrillator; LAD, left anterior descending artery; LBBB, left bundle branch block; LDL, low‐density lipoprotein; LVEDD, left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; PCI, primary coronary intervention; RBBB, right bundle branch block; RCA, right coronary artery.
P≤0.05.
Figure 2Examples of CT findings in patients with and without fat deposition with scar. A through C, Fifty‐eight‐year‐old man with VT 19 years after anterior infarction. Late gadolinium‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) shows antero‐septal scar (A). Arterial‐enhanced CT shows antero‐septal wall thinning with subendocardial fat deposition (yellow arrows) (B and C). D through F, 73‐year‐old man with VT 9 years after anterior infarction. Late gadolinium‐enhanced MRI shows antero‐septal scar (D). Arterial‐enhanced CT shows antero‐septal wall thinning with no fat deposition (E and F).
Figure 3Relationship between fat deposition within scar and time since myocardial infarction. A, Prevalence of fat deposition according to scar age. B, Extent of fat within scar according to scar age. FD+ indicates fat deposition; FD−, no fat deposition.
Figure 4Variability of fat distribution within chronic myocardial infarction. Fat assessed from CT is mapped over left chamber geometry in 12 patients with post‐infarction ventricular tachycardia. LA indicates left atrium; LV, left ventricle.
Figure 5Registration of fat distribution on electro‐anatomical mapping data. Sixty‐one‐year‐old man with history of prior myocardial infarction in right coronary artery and distal left anterior descending artery territories. The 12‐lead recording of his clinical VT indicated an infero‐septal exit (A). The distribution of fat assessed on CT was registered on the electro‐anatomical geometry (C, inferior view of left chambers with fat deposition shown in purple). During sinus rhythm, late potentials were identified on the basal fatty area (B, red arrow in C). During VT, the same fat site hosted the exit part of the VT circuit (black stars in D). LA indicates left atrial; RIPV, right inferior pulmonary vein; RSPV, right superior pulmonary vein; VT, ventricular tachycardia.
Electrophysiological Characteristics
| Fat Deposition (+) 1072 Points | Fat Deposition (−) 768 Points |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| LV volume Carto, mL | 297±115 | 284±105 | 0.76 |
| Total mapped area, cm2 | 272±68 | 284±64 | 0.64 |
| Unipolar low voltage area <8.3 mV, cm2 | 109 [60–125] | 85 [55–109] | 0.48 |
| Bipolar low voltage area <1.5 mV, cm2 | 75 [45–104] | 60 [33–82] | 0.26 |
| Bipolar low voltage area <0.5 mV, cm2 | 22 [13–46] | 14 [9–34] | 0.11 |
| Bipolar voltage, mV | 0.5 [0.3–0.9] | 0.8 [0.4–1.4] | <0.001 |
| Unipolar voltage, mV | 3.5 [2.3–4.8] | 3.6 [2.3–5.4] | 0.12 |
| Median EGM duration, ms | 99 [83–120] | 89 [70–111] | <0.001 |
| LAVA prevalence (% of scar EGMs) | 23±18 | 34±22 | 0.22 |
| LAVA delay to local EGM, ms | 75 [45–106] | 52 [22–90] | <0.001 |
| LAVA bipolar amplitude, mV | 0.22 [0.14–0.35] | 0.29 [0.16–0.66] | <0.001 |
Data expressed as mean±SD when following a normal distribution, and median [Q1–Q3] otherwise. EGM indicates electrogram; LAVA, local abnormal ventricular activity; LV, left ventricle.
P≤0.05.
Characteristics of Patients With Adverse Outcome
| Adverse Outcome n=38 (55%) | Favorable Outcome n=31 (45%) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical characteristics | |||
| Age, y | 65±12 | 67±12 | 0.34 |
| Men | 37 (97%) | 27 (87%) | 0.18 |
| Hypertension | 18 (47%) | 18 (58%) | 0.28 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 9 (24%) | 6 (19%) | 0.89 |
| Smoking | 7 (18%) | 11 (35%) | 0.78 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 29±6 | 27±5 | 0.19 |
| Scar age, y | 20±11 | 13±8 | 0.02 |
| 3‐vessel disease | 12 (32%) | 4 (13%) | 0.04 |
| CABG | 9 (24%) | 8 (26%) | 0.92 |
| PCI | 21 (55%) | 21 (68%) | 0.24 |
| Imaging characteristics | |||
| Scar extent (N segments) | 6 [4–8] | 6 [3–8] | 0.41 |
| Calcifications | 14 (37%) | 7 (23%) | 0.22 |
| Fat deposition | 31 (82%) | 13 (42%) | 0.009 |
| LVEDD, mm | 65±10 | 61±10 | 0.3 |
| LVEF <35% | 27 (71%) | 13 (42%) | 0.02 |
| Procedural outcomes | |||
| Radiofrequency duration, min | 44±19 | 39±23 | 0.23 |
| Incomplete LAVA elimination | 16 (43%) | 12 (41%) | 0.28 |
| Post‐ablation VT inducibility | 9 (33%) | 5 (25%) | 0.7 |
BMI indicates body mass index; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; Cx, circumflex; ICD, implantable cardioverter defibrillator; LAD, left anterior descending artery; LAVA, local abnormal ventricular activity; LBBB, left bundle branch block; LVEDD, left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; PCI, primary coronary intervention; RBBB, right bundle branch block; RCA, right coronary artery; VT, ventricular tachycardia.
P≤0.05.
Variables With Significant Correlation to Worse Outcome Included in Univariate and Multivariate Analysis
| Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) |
| HR (95% CI) |
| |
| Combined events=all‐cause mortality and VT recurrence | ||||
| Fat deposition | 2.85 (1.25–6.5) | 0.013 | 2.69 (1.12–6.46) | 0.027 |
| 3‐vessel disease | 2.02 (1.02–4.01) | 0.044 | 2.03 (0.98–4.18) | 0.056 |
| LVEF <35% | 2.23 (1.10–4.53) | 0.026 | 2.57 (1.13–5.86) | 0.024 |
| Scar extent | 1.04 (0.94–1.15) | 0.45 | 0.59 (0.32–1.11) | 0.10 |
| Smoking | 1.05 (0.76–1.45) | 0.78 | 1.13 (0.79–1.16) | 0.50 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 1.03 (0.62–1.38) | 0.90 | 1.00 (0.57–1.78) | 0.99 |
| Redo procedure | 1.43 (0.83–2.84) | 0.20 | 1.45 (0.8–2.63) | 0.22 |
| Age | 0.99 (0.96–1.02) | 0.48 | ||
| Scar age | 1.25 (0.70–2.22) | 0.45 | ||
| VT recurrence | ||||
| Fat deposition | 2.64 (1.06–6.6) | 0.037 | 2.91 (1.10–7.75) | 0.033 |
| LVEF <35% | 2.38 (1.03–5.50) | 0.042 | 2.05 (0.82–5.13) | 0.12 |
| Inducible after ablation | 1.65 (1.03–2.66) | 0.038 | 1.49 (0.89–2.50) | 0.13 |
| Scar extent | 1.12 (0.63–1.99) | 0.70 | 1.00 (0.86–1.16) | 0.97 |
| Scar age | 1.34 (0.90–2.00) | 0.15 | 1.02 (0.63–1.64) | 0.94 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 1.05 (0.58–1.90) | 0.87 | ||
| 3‐vessel disease | 1.36 (0.52–3.60) | 0.53 | ||
| Age | 0.98 (0.96–1.01) | 0.31 | ||
| Acute procedural complication | 0.97 (0.28–3.34) | 0.96 | ||
HR indicates hazard ratio; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; VT, ventricular tachycardia.
P≤0.05.
Figure 6Post‐ablation outcomes in patients with vs without fat deposition within scar on CT scan. VT indicates ventricular tachycardia.