Prevalence and risk factors of cardiac thrombus prior to ventricular tachycardia catheter ablation in structural heart disease.

AIMS: Assess prevalence, risk factors, and management of patients with intra-cardiac thrombus referred for scar-related ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive VT ablation referrals between January 2015 and December 2019 were reviewed (n = 618). Patients referred for de novo, scar-related VT ablation who underwent pre-procedure cardiac computed tomography (cCT) were included. We included 401 patients [61 ± 14 years; 364 male; left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40 ± 13%]; 45 patients (11%) had cardiac thrombi on cCT at 49 sites [29 LV; eight left atrial appendage (LAA); eight right ventricle (RV); four right atrial appendage]. Nine patients had pulmonary emboli. Overall predictors of cardiac thrombus included LV aneurysm [odds ratio (OR): 6.6, 95%, confidence interval (CI): 3.1-14.3], LVEF < 40% (OR: 3.3, CI: 1.5-7.3), altered RV ejection fraction (OR: 2.3, CI: 1.1-4.6), and electrical storm (OR: 2.9, CI: 1.4-6.1). Thrombus location-specific analysis identified LV aneurysm (OR: 10.9, CI: 4.3-27.7) and LVEF < 40% (OR: 9.6, CI: 2.6-35.8) as predictors of LV thrombus and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (OR: 10.6, CI: 1.2-98.4) as a predictor for RV thrombus. Left atrial appendage thrombi exclusively occurred in patients with atrial fibrillation. Ventricular tachycardia ablation was finally performed in 363 including 7 (16%) patients with thrombus but refractory electrical storm. These seven patients had tailored ablation with no embolic complications. Only one (0.3%) ablation-related embolic event occurred in the entire cohort. CONCLUSION: Cardiac thrombus can be identified in 11% of patients referred for scar-related VT ablation. These findings underscore the importance of systematic thrombus screening to minimize embolic risk.

Progressive implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapies for ventricular tachycardia: The efficacy and safety of multiple bursts, ramps, and low-energy shocks.

BACKGROUND: The Heart Rhythm Society, the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on optimal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming recommends burst antitachycardia pacing (ATP) for the treatment of ventricular tachycardia (VT) up to high rates. The number of bursts is not specified, and treatment by ramps or low-energy shocks is not recommended. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the efficacy and safety of progressive therapies for VTs between 150 and 200 beats/min. After 3 failed bursts, we compared 3 ramps vs 3 bursts followed by a low-energy shock vs high-energy shock. METHODS: Using remote monitoring, we included monomorphic VT episodes treated with ≥1 burst. RESULTS: A total of 1126 VT episodes were included. A single burst was as likely to terminate VT between 150 and 200 beats/min as VT between 200 and 230 beats/min (63% vs 64%; P=.41), but was more likely to accelerate the latter (3.2% vs 0.25%; P<.01). For VT <200 beats/min, the likelihood of ATP success increased progressively (73% with 2 bursts, 78% with 3 bursts). Three additional bursts further increased VT termination to 89%, similar to the success rate with 3 additional ramps (88%; P=.17). Programming 6 bursts is associated with the probability of acceleration requiring shock of 6.6%. A low-energy first shock was less successful than a high-energy shock (66% vs 86%; P<.01) and more likely to accelerate VT (17% vs 0%; P<.01). CONCLUSION: Programming up to 6 burst ATP therapies for VTs 150-200 beats/min can avoid implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks in most patients. Ramp ATP after failed bursts were similarly effective. Low-energy shocks are less effective and more arrhythmogenic than high-energy shocks.