David Soto-Iglesias1, Diego Penela2, Beatriz Jáuregui3, Juan Acosta4, Juan Fernández-Armenta5, Markus Linhart6, Giulio Zucchelli7, Vladimir Syrovnev6, Fatima Zaraket6, Cheryl Terés3, Rosario J Perea6, Susana Prat-González6, Ada Doltra6, José T Ortiz-Pérez6, Xavier Bosch6, Oscar Camara8, Antonio Berruezo9. 1. Heart Institute, Teknon Medical Center, Barcelona, Spain; Clinic Cardiovascular Institute, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain. 2. Ospedale Guglielmo da Saliceto, Piacenza, Italy. 3. Heart Institute, Teknon Medical Center, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Sevilla, Spain. 5. Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain. 6. Clinic Cardiovascular Institute, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain. 7. Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy. 8. Physense, DTIC, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain. 9. Heart Institute, Teknon Medical Center, Barcelona, Spain; Clinic Cardiovascular Institute, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: antonio.berruezo@quironsalud.es.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the feasibility and potential benefit of performing ventricular tachycardia (VT) substrate ablation procedures guided by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-derived pixel signal intensity (PSI) maps. BACKGROUND: CMR-aided VT ablation using PSI maps from late gadolinium enhancement-CMR (LGE-CMR), together with electroanatomical map (EAM) information, has been shown to improve outcomes of VT substrate ablation. METHODS: Eighty-four patients with scar-dependent monomorphic VT who underwent substrate ablation were included in the study. In the last 28 (33%) consecutive patients, the procedure was guided by CMR. Procedural data, as well as acute and follow-up outcomes, were compared between patients who underwent guided CMR and 2 control groups: 1) patients who had PSI maps were available but the EAM was acquired and used to select the ablation targets (CMR aided); and 2) patients with no CMR-derived PSI maps available (no CMR). RESULTS: Mean procedure duration was lower in CMR-guided substrate ablation compared with CMR-aided and no CMR (107 ± 59 min vs. 203 ± 68 min and 227 ± 52 min; p < 0.001 for both comparisons). CMR-guided ablation required less fluoroscopy time than CMR-aided ablation and no CMR (10 ± 4 min vs. 23 ± 11 min and 20 ± 9 min, respectively; p < 0.001 for both comparisons) and less radiofrequency time (15 ± 8 min vs. 20 ± 15 min and 26 ± 10 min; p = 0.16 and p < 0.001, respectively). After substrate ablation, VT inducibility was lower in CMR-guided ablation compared with CMR-aided ablation and no CMR (18% vs. 32% and 46%; p = 0.35 and p = 0.04, respectively), without significant differences in complications. After 12 months, VT recurrence was lower in those who underwent CMR-guided ablation compared with no CMR (log-rank: 0.019), with no differences with CMR-aided ablation. CONCLUSIONS: CMR-guided VT ablation is feasible and safe, significantly reduces the procedural, fluoroscopy, and radiofrequency times, and is associated with a higher noninducibility rate and lower VT recurrence after substrate ablation.
OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the feasibility and potential benefit of performing ventricular tachycardia (VT) substrate ablation procedures guided by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-derived pixel signal intensity (PSI) maps. BACKGROUND: CMR-aided VT ablation using PSI maps from late gadolinium enhancement-CMR (LGE-CMR), together with electroanatomical map (EAM) information, has been shown to improve outcomes of VT substrate ablation. METHODS: Eighty-four patients with scar-dependent monomorphic VT who underwent substrate ablation were included in the study. In the last 28 (33%) consecutive patients, the procedure was guided by CMR. Procedural data, as well as acute and follow-up outcomes, were compared between patients who underwent guided CMR and 2 control groups: 1) patients who had PSI maps were available but the EAM was acquired and used to select the ablation targets (CMR aided); and 2) patients with no CMR-derived PSI maps available (no CMR). RESULTS: Mean procedure duration was lower in CMR-guided substrate ablation compared with CMR-aided and no CMR (107 ± 59 min vs. 203 ± 68 min and 227 ± 52 min; p < 0.001 for both comparisons). CMR-guided ablation required less fluoroscopy time than CMR-aided ablation and no CMR (10 ± 4 min vs. 23 ± 11 min and 20 ± 9 min, respectively; p < 0.001 for both comparisons) and less radiofrequency time (15 ± 8 min vs. 20 ± 15 min and 26 ± 10 min; p = 0.16 and p < 0.001, respectively). After substrate ablation, VT inducibility was lower in CMR-guided ablation compared with CMR-aided ablation and no CMR (18% vs. 32% and 46%; p = 0.35 and p = 0.04, respectively), without significant differences in complications. After 12 months, VT recurrence was lower in those who underwent CMR-guided ablation compared with no CMR (log-rank: 0.019), with no differences with CMR-aided ablation. CONCLUSIONS: CMR-guided VT ablation is feasible and safe, significantly reduces the procedural, fluoroscopy, and radiofrequency times, and is associated with a higher noninducibility rate and lower VT recurrence after substrate ablation.
Authors: Tevfik F Ismail; Wendy Strugnell; Chiara Coletti; Maša Božić-Iven; Sebastian Weingärtner; Kerstin Hammernik; Teresa Correia; Thomas Küstner Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-03-03
Authors: Giovanni Volpato; Paolo Compagnucci; Laura Cipolletta; Quintino Parisi; Yari Valeri; Laura Carboni; Andrea Giovagnoni; Antonio Dello Russo; Michela Casella Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-08-22
Authors: Rosália Morais Torres; Dalmo Correia; Maria do Carmo Pereira Nunes; Walderez O Dutra; André Talvani; Andréa Silvestre Sousa; Fernanda de Souza Nogueira Sardinha Mendes; Maurício Ibrahim Scanavacca; Cristiano Pisani; Maria da Consolação Vieira Moreira; Dilma do Socorro Moraes de Souza; Wilson de Oliveira Junior; Silvia Marinho Martins; João Carlos Pinto Dias Journal: Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz Date: 2022-06-06 Impact factor: 2.747
Authors: Alessio Lilli; Matteo Parollo; Lorenzo Mazzocchetti; Francesco De Sensi; Andrea Rossi; Pasquale Notarstefano; Amato Santoro; Giovanni Donato Aquaro; Alberto Cresti; Federica Lapira; Lorenzo Faggioni; Carlo Tessa; Luca Pauselli; Maria Grazia Bongiorni; Antonio Berruezo; Giulio Zucchelli Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 2.174
Authors: George Markousis-Mavrogenis; George Poulos; Theodoros Dimitroulas; Aikaterini Giannakopoulou; Clio Mavragani; Vasiliki Vartela; Dionysia Manolopoulou; Genovefa Kolovou; Paraskevi Voulgari; Petros P Sfikakis; George D Kitas; Sophie I Mavrogeni Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-03-15