ABSTRACT
Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is part of group 4 of the pulmonary hypertension (PH) classification and generally affects more than a third of patients referred to PH centers. It is a three-compartment disease involving proximal (lobar-to-segmental) and distal (subsegmental) pulmonary arteries that are obstructed by persistent fibrothrombotic material, and precapillary pulmonary arteries that can be affected as in pulmonary arterial hypertension. It is a rare complication of pulmonary embolism (PE), with an incidence of around 3% in PE survivors. The observed incidence of CTEPH in the general population is around six cases per million but could be three times higher than this, as estimated from PE incidence. However, a previous venous thromboembolic episode is not always documented. With advances in multimodality imaging and therapeutic management, survival for CTEPH has improved for both operable and inoperable patients. Advanced imaging with pulmonary angiography helps distinguish proximal from distal obstructive disease. However, right heart catheterization is of utmost importance to establish the diagnosis and hemodynamic severity of PH. The therapeutic strategy relies on a stepwise approach, starting with an operability assessment. Pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA), also known as pulmonary thromboendarterectomy, is the first-line treatment for operable patients. Growing experience and advances in surgical technique have enabled expansion of the distal limits of PEA and significant improvements in perioperative and mid- to long-term mortality. In patients who are inoperable or who have persistent/recurrent PH after PEA, medical therapy and/or balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) are effective treatment options with favorable outcomes that are increasingly used. All treatment decisions should be made with a multidisciplinary team that includes a PEA surgeon, a BPA expert, and a chest radiologist.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Ventricular tachycardia (VT) is a frequent cause of mortality and morbidity in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD). We aim to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of radiofrequency catheter ablation (RCA) of VT in patients with IHD and to discuss its appropriate timing and limitations. METHODS: Literature searches of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Health Technology Assessment, and PsycINFO were performed in February 2020. RCTs comparing RCA vs conventional management for VT in patients with IHD and previous or planned implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) were identified. Clinical outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, VT storm, recurrent VT/ventricular fibrillation (VF), appropriate ICD therapies, and appropriate ICD shocks. Using a random-effects model, relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each outcome. RESULTS: A total of 6 RCTs (N = 791) met inclusion criteria. RCA was associated with significantly lower VT storm (RR 0.70; CI95% 0.51 to 0.94, p = 0.02) and appropriate ICD therapies (RR 0.69; CI95% 0.54 to 0.88, p = 0.003), including appropriate ICD shocks (RR 0.66; CI95% 0.47 to 0.92, p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, and recurrent VT/VF. CONCLUSIONS: Radiofrequency catheter ablation for VT in patients with IHD was associated with a reduced risk of VT storm, ICD therapies, and ICD shocks. There is a need for future carefully designed RCTs that incorporate improved RCA procedural aspects.
