INTRODUCTION: Catheter ablation of frequent para-Hisian premature ventricular contractions (PH-PVCs) is considered to be challenging. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the strategy, potential technical advantages, and clinical outcomes of remote magnetic navigation (RMN) in the ablation of PH-PVCs. METHODS: Fifteen consecutive patients with PH-PVCs were included in this study. Electrical mapping was initially performed in the right ventricular septum by manipulating the RMN catheter with a "U-curve." In the case of no optimal ablation site or ablation failure, the ablation catheter was directed to the left ventricular (LV) septum through a transseptal approach for further mapping and ablation by manipulating the RMN catheter with a "reverse S-curve." RESULTS: Nine of 15 patients were submitted to ablation on the right side. However, ablation success was only achieved in only three (33%) cases. Of the other 12 patients, 11 underwent LV mapping and ablation. In this subset, 9 of 11 (82%) PH-PVCs were totally eliminated on the left side. Overall, RMN-guided mapping and ablation successfully eliminated 12 (80%) of 15 idiopathic PH-PVCs. During follow-up, the reoccurrence of PVCs was reported in 1 (8%) of 12 patients. No atrioventricular block was observed during or after the procedure. CONCLUSION: RMN-guided catheter ablation for PH-PVCs is effective and safe in unselected patients. Due to the excellent reachability and contact with special morphologies of the RMN catheter on both sides of the ventricular septum, RMN can be considered an effective approach for frequent PH-PVCs.
INTRODUCTION: Catheter ablation of frequent para-Hisian premature ventricular contractions (PH-PVCs) is considered to be challenging. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the strategy, potential technical advantages, and clinical outcomes of remote magnetic navigation (RMN) in the ablation of PH-PVCs. METHODS: Fifteen consecutive patients with PH-PVCs were included in this study. Electrical mapping was initially performed in the right ventricular septum by manipulating the RMN catheter with a "U-curve." In the case of no optimal ablation site or ablation failure, the ablation catheter was directed to the left ventricular (LV) septum through a transseptal approach for further mapping and ablation by manipulating the RMN catheter with a "reverse S-curve." RESULTS: Nine of 15 patients were submitted to ablation on the right side. However, ablation success was only achieved in only three (33%) cases. Of the other 12 patients, 11 underwent LV mapping and ablation. In this subset, 9 of 11 (82%) PH-PVCs were totally eliminated on the left side. Overall, RMN-guided mapping and ablation successfully eliminated 12 (80%) of 15 idiopathic PH-PVCs. During follow-up, the reoccurrence of PVCs was reported in 1 (8%) of 12 patients. No atrioventricular block was observed during or after the procedure. CONCLUSION:RMN-guided catheter ablation for PH-PVCs is effective and safe in unselected patients. Due to the excellent reachability and contact with special morphologies of the RMN catheter on both sides of the ventricular septum, RMN can be considered an effective approach for frequent PH-PVCs.