Cardiology and Eletrophysiology Department, Hospital de Santa Cruz, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental, Av. Prof. Reinaldo Dos Santos, 2790-134, Carnaxide, Portugal.
Heart Institute (Incor), University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil.
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2023 Jan;66(1):87-94. doi: 10.1007/s10840-022-01175-3. Epub 2022 Mar 8.
Direct comparisons of combined (C-ABL) and non-combined (NC-ABL) endo-epicardial ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation outcomes are scarce. We aimed to investigate the long-term clinical efficacy and safety of these 2 strategies in ischemic heart disease (IHD) and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) populations.
Multicentric observational registry included 316 consecutive patients who underwent catheter ablation for drug-resistant VT between January 2008 and July 2019. Primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were defined as VT-free survival and all-cause death after ablation. Safety outcomes were defined by 30-day mortality and procedure-related complications.
Most of the patients were male (85%), with IHD (67%) and mean age of 63 ± 13 years. During a mean follow-up of 3 ± 2 years, 117 (37%) patients had VT recurrence and 73 (23%) died. Multivariate survival analysis identified electrical storm (ES) at presentation, IHD, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III / IV, and C-ABL as independent predictors of VT recurrence. In 135 patients undergoing repeated procedures, only C-ABL and ES were independent predictors of relapse. The identified independent predictors of mortality were C-ABL, ES, LVEF, age, and NYHA class III / IV. C-ABL survival benefit was only seen in patients with a previous ablation (P for interaction = 0.04). Mortality at 30 days was similar between NC-ABL and C-ABL (4% vs. 2%, respectively, P = 0.777), as was complication rate (10.3% vs. 15.1%, respectively, P = 0.336).
A combined or sequential endo-epicardial VT ablation strategy was associated with lower VT recurrence and lower all-cause death in IHD and NICM patients undergoing repeated procedures. Both approaches seemed equally safe.
直接比较合并(C-ABL)和非合并(NC-ABL)心内膜-心外膜室性心动过速(VT)消融结果的研究很少。我们旨在研究这两种策略在缺血性心脏病(IHD)和非缺血性心肌病(NICM)患者中的长期临床疗效和安全性。
多中心观察性研究纳入了 2008 年 1 月至 2019 年 7 月期间因药物难治性 VT 而行导管消融的 316 例连续患者。主要和次要有效性终点定义为消融后 VT 无复发生存和全因死亡。安全性结局定义为 30 天死亡率和与程序相关的并发症。
大多数患者为男性(85%),IHD 患者(67%),平均年龄为 63±13 岁。在平均 3±2 年的随访期间,117 例(37%)患者出现 VT 复发,73 例(23%)患者死亡。多变量生存分析确定首发时电风暴(ES)、IHD、左心室射血分数(LVEF)、纽约心脏协会(NYHA)功能分级 III/IV 级和 C-ABL 是 VT 复发的独立预测因素。在 135 例接受重复手术的患者中,只有 C-ABL 和 ES 是复发的独立预测因素。死亡的独立预测因素是 C-ABL、ES、LVEF、年龄和 NYHA 分级 III/IV 级。只有在有既往消融史的患者中,C-ABL 才有生存获益(P 交互 = 0.04)。30 天死亡率在 NC-ABL 和 C-ABL 之间相似(分别为 4%和 2%,P = 0.777),并发症发生率也相似(分别为 10.3%和 15.1%,P = 0.336)。
在接受重复手术的 IHD 和 NICM 患者中,联合或序贯心内膜-心外膜 VT 消融策略与较低的 VT 复发率和较低的全因死亡率相关。两种方法似乎同样安全。