Substrate Characterization and Outcome of Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Tachycardia in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy and Isolated Epicardial Scar.

BACKGROUND: The substrate for ventricular tachycardia (VT) in left ventricular (LV) nonischemic cardiomyopathy may be epicardial. We assessed the prevalence, location, endocardial electrograms, and VT ablation outcomes in LV nonischemic cardiomyopathy with isolated epicardial substrate. METHODS: Forty-seven of 531 (9%) patients with LV nonischemic cardiomyopathy and VT demonstrated normal endocardial (>1.5 mV)/abnormal epicardial bipolar low-voltage area (LVA, <1.0 mV and signal abnormality). Abnormal endocardial unipolar LVA (≤8.3 mV) and endocardial bipolar split electrograms and predictors of ablation success were assessed. RESULTS: Epicardial bipolar LVA (27.3 cm2 [interquartile range, 15.8-50.0]) localized to basal (40), mid (8), and apical (3) LV with basal inferolateral LV most common (28/47, 60%). Of 44 endocardial maps available, 40 (91%) had endocardial unipolar LVA (24.5 cm2 [interquartile range, 9.4-68.5]) and 29 (67%) had characteristic normal amplitude endocardial split electrograms opposite the epicardial LVA. At mean of 34 months, the VT-free survival was 55% after one and 72% after multiple procedures. Greater endocardial unipolar LVA than epicardial bipolar LVA (hazard ratio, 10.66 [CI, 2.63-43.12], P=0.001) and number of inducible VTs (hazard ratio, 1.96 [CI, 1.27-3.00], P=0.002) were associated with VT recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with LV nonischemic cardiomyopathy and VT, the substrate may be confined to epicardial and commonly basal inferolateral. LV endocardial unipolar LVA and normal amplitude bipolar split electrograms identify epicardial LVA. Ablation targeting epicardial VT and substrate achieves good long-term VT-free survival. Greater endocardial unipolar than epicardial bipolar LVA and more inducible VTs predict VT recurrence.

Characterization of Structural Changes in Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy With Recurrent Ventricular Tachycardia After Ablation: Insights From Repeat Electroanatomic Voltage Mapping.

BACKGROUND: Data characterizing structural changes of arrhythmogenic right ventricular (RV) cardiomyopathy are limited. METHODS: Patients presenting with left bundle branch block ventricular tachycardia in the setting of arrhythmogenic RV cardiomyopathy with procedures separated by at least 9 months were included. RESULTS: Nineteen consecutive patients (84% males; mean age 39±15 years [range, 20-76 years]) were included. All 19 patients underwent 2 detailed sinus rhythm electroanatomic endocardial voltage maps (average 385±177 points per map; range, 93-847 points). Time interval between the initial and repeat ablation procedures was mean 50±37 months (range, 9-162). No significant progression of voltage was observed (bipolar: 38 cm2 [interquartile range (IQR), 25-54] versus 53 cm2 [IQR, 25-65], P=0.09; unipolar: 116 cm2 [IQR, 61-209] versus 159 cm2 [IQR, 73-204], P=0.36) for the entire study group. There was a significant increase in RV volumes (percentage increase, 28%; 206 mL [IQR, 170-253] versus 263 mL [IQR, 204-294], P<0.001) for the entire study population. Larger scars at baseline but not changes over time were associated with a significant increase in RV volume (bipolar: Spearman ρ, 0.6965, P=0.006; unipolar: Spearman ρ, 0.5743, P=0.03). Most patients with progressive RV dilatation (8/14, 57%) had moderate (2 patients) or severe (6 patients) tricuspid regurgitation recorded at either initial or repeat ablation procedure. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with arrhythmogenic RV cardiomyopathy presenting with recurrent ventricular tachycardia, >10% increase in RV endocardial surface area of bipolar voltage consistent with scar is uncommon during the intermediate term. Most recurrent ventricular tachycardias are localized to regions of prior defined scar. Voltage indexed scar area at baseline but not changes in scar over time is associated with progressive increase in RV size and is consistent with adverse remodeling but not scar progression. Marked tricuspid regurgitation is frequently present in patients with arrhythmogenic RV cardiomyopathy who have progressive RV dilation.

Electrocardiographic and Electrophysiologic Characteristics of Idiopathic Ventricular Arrhythmias Originating From the Basal Inferoseptal Left Ventricle.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to characterize ventricular arrhythmia (VA) ablated from the basal inferoseptal left ventricular endocardium (BIS-LVe) and identify electrocardiographic characteristics to differentiate from inferobasal crux (IBC) VA. BACKGROUND: The inferior basal septum is an uncommon source of idiopathic VAs, which can arise from its endocardial or epicardial (crux) aspect. Because the latter are often targeted from the coronary venous system or epicardium, distinguishing between the 2 is important for successful ablation. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing ablation of idiopathic VA from the BIS-LVe or IBC from 2009 to 2018 were identified and clinical characteristics and electrocardiographs of VA were compared. RESULTS: Of 931 patients undergoing idiopathic VA ablation, Virginia was eliminated from the BIS-LVe in 19 patients (2%) (17 male, age 63.7 ± 9.2 years, LV ejection fraction: 45.0 ± 9.3%). QRS complexes typically manifested right bundle branch block morphology with "reverse V2 pattern break" and left superior axis (more negative in lead III than II). VA elimination was achieved after median of 2 lesions (interquartile range [IQR]: 1-6; range 1 to 20) (radiofrequency ablation time: 123 s [IQR: 75-311]). Compared with 7 patients with IBC VA (3 male, age 51.9 ± 20.1 years, LV ejection fraction: 51.4 ± 17.7%), BIS-LVe VA less frequently had initial negative forces (QS pattern) in leads II, III, and/or aVF (p < 0.001), R-S ratio <1 in lead V1 (p = 0.005), and notching in lead II (p = 0.006) were narrower (QRS duration: 178.2 ± 22.4 vs. 221.1 ± 41.9 ms; p = 0.04) and more frequently had maximum deflection index of <0.55 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The BIS-LVe region is an uncommon source of idiopathic VA. Distinguishing these from IBC VA is important for procedural planning and ablation success.

Feasibility of complex transfemoral electrophysiology procedures in patients with inferior vena cava filters.

BACKGROUND: The presence of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) has been considered a relative contraindication to electrophysiology (EP) procedures that require transfemoral venous placement of multiple catheters and/or long sheaths. There are inadequate data related to complex EP procedures in this population. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the experience of a single high-volume center with respect to complex EP procedures in patients with IVCFs. METHODS: Patients with IVCFs undergoing complex EP procedures between 2004 and 2018 were identified. Clinical characteristics, IVCF type, procedural findings, and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty complex ablation procedures were performed in 40 patients (mean age 63.8 ± 10.9 years; 68% men). The mean IVCF dwell time was 69.1 ± 19.1 months, and 48 patients (96%) were on chronic oral anticoagulation. Procedures included ablation of atrial fibrillation (n = 21), ventricular tachycardia (n = 20), supraventricular tachycardia (n = 3), cavotricuspid isthmus flutter (n = 3), supraventricular tachycardia and cavotricuspid isthmus flutter (n = 1), and transvenous lead extraction (n = 3). Twenty procedures included quadripolar catheters (mean 1.4 ± 0.75), and 33 procedures involved deflectable decapolar catheters (mean 1.7 ± 0.47). Long sheaths were used in 35 cases (mean 1.63 ± 0.49) and intracardiac echocardiography in 38. In 4 cases (involving 3 patients), the IVCF was occluded and could not be crossed. There were no procedural complications related to the IVCF. CONCLUSION: The substantial majority of IVCFs in patients presenting for complex EP procedures were patent and easily crossed under fluoroscopic guidance. The presence of an IVCF should not discourage operators from performing procedures that require transfemoral deployment of multiple catheters and/or sheaths.