Arrhythmia Unit and EP laboratories, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2024 Jul;17(7):e012181. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.123.012181. Epub 2024 Jun 5.
Epicardial approach in ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation is still regarded as a second-step strategy, due to the risk of complications. We evaluated the frequency that epicardial ablation targets were identified and ablation performed following pericardial access compared with unnecessary pericardial access for different VT causes and potential markers of epicardial VT.
All VT ablation procedures including epicardial approach over a 10-year period were included. First-line epicardial approach was indicated in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) and postmyocarditis VT; in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (IDCM) and postmyocardial infarction, indications resulted from available imaging techniques or 12-lead VT morphology. The epicardial approach was considered useful if epicardial ablation was performed after epicardial mapping. Feasibility, complications, and long-term outcome were reported.
Four hundred and eighty-eight subjects with a median age of 60 years (interquartile range, 47-65) and of left ventricle ejection fraction 41% (interquartile range, 30-55) underwent 626 epicardial VT ablations. Percutaneous access had a success rate of 92.2% and a complication rate of 3.6%. Overall, epicardial approach was, respectively, indicated to 11.8% of postmyocardial infarction patients, 49.5% in IDCM, 94% in myocarditis, and 90.7% in ARVC. Epicardial ablation at the first ablation attempt was performed in 9.3% of postmyocardial infarction patients, 28.8% in IDCM, 86.5% in myocarditis, and 81.3% in patients with ARVC. In first-line epicardial group, ARVC and myocarditis showed the highest odds for epicardial ablation (OR, 4.057 [95% CI, 1.299-8.937]; =0.007; OR, 3.971 [95% CI, 1.376-11.465]; =0.005, respectively). IDCM independently predicted unnecessary epicardial approach (OR, 2.7 [95% CI, 1.7-4.3]; <0.001). After a follow-up of 41 months (interquartile range, 19-64), patients with IDCM experienced higher rate of recurrences and mortality compared with other causes.
Epicardial approach is integral part of ablation armamentarium regardless of the VT cause, with high feasibility and low complication rate in experienced centers. Our data support its use at first ablation attempt in VTs related to ARVC and myocarditis.
由于并发症的风险,心外膜方法在室性心动过速(VT)消融中仍被视为第二步策略。我们评估了心包穿刺后识别心外膜消融靶点并进行消融的频率,与不同 VT 病因和心外膜 VT 的潜在标志物的不必要心包穿刺进行比较。
包括 10 年来所有 VT 消融手术,包括心外膜入路。心律失常性右心室心肌病(ARVC)和心肌炎后 VT 患者采用一线心外膜入路;特发性扩张型心肌病(IDCM)和心肌梗死后,适应证取决于可用的影像学技术或 12 导联 VT 形态。如果在进行心外膜标测后进行心外膜消融,则认为心外膜入路是有用的。报告了可行性、并发症和长期结果。
488 名中位年龄 60 岁(四分位距,47-65)和左心室射血分数 41%(四分位距,30-55)的患者接受了 626 次心外膜 VT 消融术。经皮穿刺成功率为 92.2%,并发症发生率为 3.6%。总体而言,心肌梗死后患者心外膜入路分别占 11.8%,IDCM 占 49.5%,心肌炎占 94%,ARVC 占 90.7%。心肌梗死后患者首次消融尝试时进行心外膜消融的比例为 9.3%,IDCM 为 28.8%,心肌炎为 86.5%,ARVC 为 81.3%。在一线心外膜组中,ARVC 和心肌炎的心外膜消融的可能性最高(比值比,4.057 [95%置信区间,1.299-8.937];=0.007;比值比,3.971 [95%置信区间,1.376-11.465];=0.005)。IDCM 独立预测了不必要的心外膜入路(比值比,2.7 [95%置信区间,1.7-4.3];<0.001)。在 41 个月(四分位距,19-64)的随访中,与其他病因相比,IDCM 患者的复发率和死亡率更高。
心外膜方法是消融武器库的重要组成部分,无论 VT 病因如何,在有经验的中心都具有很高的可行性和低并发症率。我们的数据支持在 ARVC 和心肌炎相关 VT 的首次消融尝试中使用。