Search

Background: Although percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVADs) facilitate mapping and ablation of hemodynamically unstable ventricular tachycardia (VT), there is limited data whether clinical outcomes are improved. We sought to retrospectively compare the outcomes of patients undergoing scar-related VT ablation with and without pLVAD support.Methods and Results: The study population comprised 194 patients (109 pLVAD and 85 non-pLVAD). The pLVAD group more often had dilated cardiomyopathy (33% versus 13%; P=0.001), New York Heart Association heart failure class ≥III (51% versus 25%; P<0.001), lower left ventricular ejection fractions (26±10% versus 39±16%; P<0.001), and electrical storm (49% versus 34%; P=0.04). Procedure times (422±112 versus 330±92 minutes; P<0.001), postablation VT inducibility (20% versus 7%; P=0.02), and length of subsequent hospitalization (median 6 versus 4 days; P=0.001) were all higher in the pLVAD group. During median follow-up of 215 days, the primary end point (recurrent VT, heart transplantation, or death) occurred in 36% of the pLVAD versus 26% of the non-pLVAD groups (P=0.14). After propensity matching for differences between groups, no differences were seen between groups for both acute procedural outcomes and the primary end point.Conclusions: In this large single-center scar-related VT ablation experience, despite the worse clinical status of the patients selected for pLVAD support, clinical outcomes were better than expected and were similar to healthier patients not receiving hemodynamic support. Patients with dilated cardiomyopathy presenting with electrical storm, advanced heart failure, and severe left ventricular dysfunction most frequently received hemodynamic support during VT ablation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Esophageal Deviation in AF Ablation. Objective: To determine the feasibility and safety of esophageal displacement during atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, to prevent thermal injury. Background: Patients undergoing AF ablation are at risk of esophageal thermal injury, which ranges from superficial ulceration, to gastroparesis, to the rare but catastrophic atrioesophageal fistula. A common approach to avoid damage is luminal esophageal temperature (LET) monitoring; however, (1) temperature rises mandate interruptions in energy delivery that interrupt workflow and potentially decrease procedural efficacy, and (2) esophageal fistulas have been reported even with LET monitoring. Methods: A cohort of 20 consecutive patients undergoing radiofrequency (RF) (16 patients) or laser balloon (4 patients) ablation of AF under general anesthesia. After barium instillation, the esophagus was deviated using an endotracheal stylet placed within a thoracic chest tube. LET monitoring was used during catheter ablation. Upper GI endoscopy was performed prior to discharge. Results: At the pulmonary vein level, leftward deviation measured 2.8 ± 1.6 cm (range: 0.4-5.7) and rightward deviation 2.8 ± 1.8 cm (range: 0.5-4.9). The temperature rose to >38.5 °C in 3/20 (15%) patients. In these 3 patients, there was an average of 2 applications/patient that recorded temperatures >38.5 °C. No patient had a temperature rise > 40 °C. Endoscopy revealed no esophageal ulceration from thermal injury in 18/19 (95%) patients; the sole patient with a thermally mediated ulceration had an unusual esophageal diverticulum fully across the posterior left atrium. Twelve patients (63%) exhibited trauma related to instrumentation with no clinical sequelae. Conclusions: Mechanical esophageal deviation is feasible and allows for uninterrupted energy delivery along the posterior wall during catheter ablation of AF. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 23, pp. 147-154, February 2012) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]