OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was 1) to investigate the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency energy catheter ablation as curative treatment for idiopathic tachycardia of both left and right ventricular origin, and 2) to compare the usefulness of different methods used to map the site of origin of idiopathic ventricular tachycardia. BACKGROUND: Percutaneous radiofrequency catheter ablation has been used with dramatic success in the treatment of patients with Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, atrioventricular node reentrant tachycardia and bundle branch reentrant tachycardia. Limited data are available on the use of radiofrequency energy catheter ablation as curative treatment for idiopathic tachycardia of both left and right ventricular origin. METHODS: Twenty-eight consecutive patients (13 to 71 years old) presenting with idiopathic ventricular tachycardia were enrolled in the study. The site of origin of both left and right ventricular tachycardia was mapped using earliest endocardial activation times during tachycardia and by pace mapping. These mapping techniques were compared. RESULTS: Radiofrequency ablation was successful in all eight patients (100%) with left ventricular tachycardia. Tachycardia recurred in one patient. The ablation procedure was complicated by mild aortic insufficiency in one patient. Right ventricular outflow tract tachycardia was successfully ablated in 17 (85%) of 20 patients. The success rate at follow-up was 85%. In one patient, the ablation procedure was complicated by acute ventricular perforation and death. Pace maps from successful ablation sites were better than pace maps from unsuccessful sites (p < 0.004). Endocardial activation times at successful ablation sites were not different from unsuccessful sites (p < 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Radiofrequency catheter ablation is an effective treatment for idiopathic ventricular tachycardia. The site of origin of tachycardia is best identified using pace mapping. Significant complications can occur and should be considered in the risk/benefit analysis for each patient.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was 1) to investigate the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency energy catheter ablation as curative treatment for idiopathic tachycardia of both left and right ventricular origin, and 2) to compare the usefulness of different methods used to map the site of origin of idiopathic ventricular tachycardia. BACKGROUND: Percutaneous radiofrequency catheter ablation has been used with dramatic success in the treatment of patients with Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, atrioventricular node reentrant tachycardia and bundle branch reentrant tachycardia. Limited data are available on the use of radiofrequency energy catheter ablation as curative treatment for idiopathic tachycardia of both left and right ventricular origin. METHODS: Twenty-eight consecutive patients (13 to 71 years old) presenting with idiopathic ventricular tachycardia were enrolled in the study. The site of origin of both left and right ventricular tachycardia was mapped using earliest endocardial activation times during tachycardia and by pace mapping. These mapping techniques were compared. RESULTS: Radiofrequency ablation was successful in all eight patients (100%) with left ventricular tachycardia. Tachycardia recurred in one patient. The ablation procedure was complicated by mild aortic insufficiency in one patient. Right ventricular outflow tract tachycardia was successfully ablated in 17 (85%) of 20 patients. The success rate at follow-up was 85%. In one patient, the ablation procedure was complicated by acute ventricular perforation and death. Pace maps from successful ablation sites were better than pace maps from unsuccessful sites (p < 0.004). Endocardial activation times at successful ablation sites were not different from unsuccessful sites (p < 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Radiofrequency catheter ablation is an effective treatment for idiopathic ventricular tachycardia. The site of origin of tachycardia is best identified using pace mapping. Significant complications can occur and should be considered in the risk/benefit analysis for each patient.
Authors: Edmond M Cronin; Frank M Bogun; Philippe Maury; Petr Peichl; Minglong Chen; Narayanan Namboodiri; Luis Aguinaga; Luiz Roberto Leite; Sana M Al-Khatib; Elad Anter; Antonio Berruezo; David J Callans; Mina K Chung; Phillip Cuculich; Andre d'Avila; Barbara J Deal; Paolo Della Bella; Thomas Deneke; Timm-Michael Dickfeld; Claudio Hadid; Haris M Haqqani; G Neal Kay; Rakesh Latchamsetty; Francis Marchlinski; John M Miller; Akihiko Nogami; Akash R Patel; Rajeev Kumar Pathak; Luis C Saenz Morales; Pasquale Santangeli; John L Sapp; Andrea Sarkozy; Kyoko Soejima; William G Stevenson; Usha B Tedrow; Wendy S Tzou; Niraj Varma; Katja Zeppenfeld Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Masashi Kamioka; Shibu Mathew; Tina Lin; Andreas Metzner; Andreas Rillig; Sebastian Deiss; Peter Rausch; Christine Lemes; Hisaki Makimoto; Hesheng Hu; Dongpo Liang; Erik Wissner; Roland Richard Tilz; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Feifan Ouyang Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Woo Seung Shin; Man Young Lee; Sung Won Jang; Ji Hoon Kim; Hee Jeoung Yoon; Seung Won Jin; Yong Seog Oh; Ki Bae Seung; Tai Ho Rho Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2010-05-24 Impact factor: 2.153