Search

Introduction: Renal sympathetic denervation (RSDN) is an alternate management approach for refractory ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). We aimed to perform a systematic review of clinical outcomes on the impact of RSDN on refractory VA patients., Methods: A systematic search without language restriction, using PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to August 18, 2020, was performed for the studies that reported outcomes in patients who underwent RSDN for VA. The outcomes studied were-(1) recurrent VA; and (2) all-cause mortality., Results: Five studies (from 2014 to 2018) with a total of 51 VA patients met study inclusion criteria. The mean age was 61.92 ± 11.76 years, and 78.4% were men. The pooled incidence of short-term (3 months or less) and long-term (more than 3 months) VA recurrence was 63.85% (95% CI 16.75 to 99.32) and 10.52% (95% CI 0.14 to 28.75), respectively. When stratified by the number of VA episodes, there was a significant reduction in mean VA episodes (SMD -3.79, 95% CI -6.59 to -0.98, p < .01), ICD shocks (SMD -1.71, 95% CI -3.0 to -0.42, p < .01) and anti-tachycardia pacing (SMD -1.21, 95% CI -1.98 to -0.44, p < .01) following RSDN denervation. The pooled incidence of all-cause mortality after RSDN was 10.16% (95% CI 1.08 to 24.12). There were no major vascular complications, one minor vascular complication-small non-flow limiting renal artery dissection (no intervention needed)., Conclusion: RSDN appears to be a safe and effective treatment strategy in patients with prior failed antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation for recurrent ventricular arrhythmia and electrical storm., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Cardiac sympathetic denervation (CSD) is being used in the management of refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT) and electrical storm. However, data on the role of CSD in the management of ventricular arrhythmia is limited., Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of retrospective studies to calculate the pooled rate of freedom from VT and the standard mean difference of ICD shocks before and after CSD., Results: 14 nonrandomized studies with a total of 311 patients with refractory VT or electrical storm were included. At a mean follow up of 15 ± 10.7 months, the pooled rate of freedom from VT (VT nonrecurrence rate) after CSD in all causes of arrhythmia was 60% (range 48.8% to 70%, I 2   = 43%). When analysis was restricted to only arrhythmias caused by conditions other than catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) and long QT syndrome (LQTS), the pooled VT non-recurrence rate was 50% (range 41% to 58%, I 2   = 5%). After CSD, mean total number of ICD shocks per person diminished by 3.01 (95% CI 1.09-4.94, P = .002, I 2  = 96%) in overall analysis and by 0.97(95% CI 0.41-1.5, P = .001, I 2  = 45%) when CPVT and LQTS were excluded., Conclusion: In patients with refractory VT or electrical storm, CSD is associated with pooled VT nonrecurrence rate of 60% at a mean follow-up of 15 ± 10.7 months. CSD was also associated with significantly lower mean number ICD shocks per person. Further studies are needed to validate this finding in a prospective setting., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Electrophysiological procedures such as epicardial ventricular tachycardia ablation and Lariat left atrial appendage ligation that involve the epicardial space are typically associated with significant postoperative pain due to mechanical irritation and associated inflammation. There is an unmet need for an effective pain management strategy in this group of patients. We studied how this impacts patient comfort and duration of hospitalization and other associated comorbidities related to pericardial access., Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective study including 104 patients who underwent epicardial ventricular tachycardia ablation and Lariat left atrial appendage exclusion. We compared 53 patients who received postprocedural intrapericardial liposomal bupivacaine (LB)+oral colchicine (LB group) and 51 patients who received colchicine alone (non-LB group) between January 2015 and March 2018., Results: LB was associated with significant lowering of median pain scale at 6 hours (1.0 [0-2.0] versus 8.0 [6.0-8.0], P <0.001), 12 hours (1.0 [1.0-2.0] versus 6.0 [5.0-6.0], P <0.001), and up to 48 hours postprocedure. Incidence of acute severe pericarditis delayed pericardial effusion and gastrointestinal adverse effects were similar in both groups. Median length of stay was significantly lower in LB group (2.0 versus 3.0; adjusted linear coefficient -1 [CI -1.3 to -0.6], P <0.001). Subgroup analysis demonstrated similar favorable outcomes in both Lariat and epicardial ventricular tachycardia ablation groups., Conclusions: Addition of intrapericardial postprocedural LB to oral colchicine in patients undergoing epicardial access during ventricular tachycardia ablation or Lariat procedure is associated with significantly decreased numeric pain score up to 48 hours compared with colchicine alone. It is also associated with significantly shorter length of hospital stay without an increase in the risk of adverse events.

Background: There is a lack of compelling data regarding the benefit of percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVAD) in patients undergoing ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation. The study aims to conduct a meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of PVAD versus no-PVAD (N-PVAD) during VT ablation., Methods: Studies meeting criteria were systematically reviewed. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were extracted and analyzed. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects model to calculate risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI)., Results: The meta-analysis included five retrospective, observational studies consisting of 2026 patients (PVAD group-284 patients versus N-PVAD group-1742 patients). The PVAD group was sicker with significantly higher VT storm, lower LVEF and greater proportion of NYHA class ≥ III than N-PVAD (p < 0.050). The acute procedural success [RR 0.95, 95% CI, (0.89-1.00), p = 0.070], VT recurrence [RR 0.94, 95% CI, (0.66-1.34), p = 0.740] and mortality [RR 1.28, 95% CI, (0.43-3.83), p = 0.660] were similar on follow-up between PVAD versus N-PVAD. PVAD group also had significantly higher complications [RR 1.83, 95% CI (1.21-2.76), p = 0.004] and longer fluoroscopy [MD + 7.31 min, 95% CI (0.91-13.71), p = 0.030] and procedure time [MD + 71.41 min, 95% CI (31.67-111.14), p < 0.001] than N-PVAD., Conclusion: Patients receiving PVAD support during VT ablation were sicker with no significant difference in acute procedural success, VT recurrence, and mortality compared with N-PVAD. PVAD support was also associated with higher complications and longer fluoroscopy and procedure time. A prospective randomized controlled trial will identify if using PVAD support in unstable patients undergoing VT ablation will impact clinical outcomes.

Background: Catheter ablation is proven to be an effective strategy for drug refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT) in ischemic cardiomyopathy. However, the appropriate timing of VT ablation and identifying the group of patients that may receive the greatest benefit remains uncertain. There is limited data on the effect on prophylactic catheter ablation (PCA) in the prevention of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy, electrical storm, and mortality., Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search through November 1, 2017, for all eligible studies comparing PCA + ICD versus ICD only in eligible patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Clinical outcomes included all ICD therapies including ICD shocks and electrical storm. Additional outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and complications., Results: Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (N = 346) met inclusion criteria. PCA was associated with a significantly lower ICD therapies (OR 0.49; CI 0.28 to 0.87; p = 0.01) including ICD shocks [OR 0.38; CI 0.22 to 0.64; p = 0.0003) and electrical storm (OR 0.55; CI 0.30 to 1.01; p = 0.05) when compared with ICD only. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (OR 0.77; CI 0.41 to 1.46; p = 0.42), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.49; CI 0.16 to 1.50; p = 0.21), and major adverse events (OR 1.45; CI 0.52 to 4.01; p = 0.47) between two groups., Conclusion: These results suggest prophylactic catheter ablation decreases ICD therapies, including shocks and electrical storm with no improvement in overall mortality. There is a need for future carefully designed randomized clinical trials.

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients receiving hemodynamic support (HS) during ventricular tacchycardia (VT) ablation., Background: There are limited real-world data evaluating its effect of HS in ablation outcomes., Methods: An analysis of 1,655 patients from the International VT Ablation Center Collaborative group was performed. A total of 105 patients received HS with percutaneous ventricular assist device., Results: Patients in the HS group had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), higher New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and more implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks, VT storm, and antiarrhythmic drug use (all p < 0.05). The HS group also required significantly longer fluoroscopy, procedure, and total lesion time. Acute procedural success (71.8% vs. 73.7%; p = 0.04) was significantly lower and complications (12.5% vs. 6.5%; p = 0.03) and 1-year mortality (34.7% vs. 9.3%; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the HS group. Multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated HS as an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio: 5.01; 95% confidence interval: 3.44 to 7.20; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in VT recurrence between groups. In a subgroup analysis including LVEF ≤20% and NYHA functional class III to IV patients, acute procedural success (74.0% vs. 70.5%; p = 0.8), complications (15.6% vs. 7.8%; p = 0.2), VT recurrence (30.2% vs. 38.1%; p = 0.44), and 1-year mortality (40.0% vs. 28.8%; p = 0.2) were no different between the HS and no-HS groups., Conclusions: Patients requiring HS were sicker with multiple comorbidities and, as expected, had a significantly higher 1-year mortality than did those patients in the no-HS group. In patients with LVEF ≤20% and NYHA functional class III to IV, there was also no significant difference in clinical outcomes when compared with no HS. Further studies are needed to systematically evaluate patients undergoing VT ablation receiving HS., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There are limited studies on the safety and efficacy of remote magnetic navigation (RMN) versus manual navigation (MAN) in ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using the keywords VT ablation, stereotaxis, RMN and MAN in Pubmed, Ebsco, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google scholar databases., Results: The analysis included seven studies (one randomized, three prospective observational, and three retrospective) including 779 patients [both structural heart disease (SHD) and idiopathic VT] comparing RMN (N = 433) and MAN (N = 339) in VT ablation. The primary end point of long-term VT recurrence was significantly lower with RMN (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.85, p = 0.003) compared with MAN. Other end points of acute procedural success (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.40-3.23, p = 0.0004) was significantly higher with RMN compared with MAN. Fluoroscopy [mean difference -10.42, 95% CI -12.7 to -8.1, p < 0.0001], procedural time [mean difference -9.79, 95% CI -19.27 to -0.3, p = 0.04] and complications (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17-0.74, p = 0.0006) were also significantly lower in RMN when compared with MAN. In a subgroup analysis SHD, there was no significant difference in VT recurrence or acute procedural success with RMN vs. MAN. In idiopathic VT, RMN significantly increased acute procedural success with no difference in VT recurrence., Conclusion: The results demonstrate that RMN is safe and effective when compared with MAN in patients with both SHD and idiopathic VT undergoing catheter ablation. Further prospective studies are needed to further verify the safety and efficacy of RMN.