Contact force sensing in ablation of ventricular arrhythmias using a 56-hole open-irrigation catheter: a propensity-matched analysis.

PURPOSE: The effect of adding contact force (CF) sensing to 56-hole tip irrigation in ventricular arrhythmia (VA) ablation has not been previously studied. We aimed to compare outcomes with and without CF sensing in VA ablation using a 56-hole radiofrequency (RF) catheter. METHODS: A total of 164 patients who underwent first-time VA ablation using Thermocool SmartTouch Surround Flow (TC-STSF) catheter (Biosense-Webster, Diamond Bar, CA, USA) were propensity-matched in a 1:1 fashion to 164 patients who had first-time ablation using Thermocool Surround Flow (TC-SF) catheter. Patients were matched for age, gender, cardiac aetiology, ejection fraction and approach. Acute success, complications and long-term follow-up were compared. RESULTS: There was no difference between procedures utilising either TC-SF or TC-STSF in acute success (TC-SF: 134/164 (82%), TC-STSF: 141/164 (86%), p = 0.3), complications (TC-SF: 11/164 (6.7%), TC-STSF: 11/164 (6.7%), p = 1.0) or VA-free survival (TC-SF: mean arrhythmia-free survival time = 5.9 years, 95% CI = 5.4-6.4, TC-STSF: mean = 3.2 years, 95% CI = 3-3.5, log-rank p = 0.74). Fluoroscopy time was longer in normal hearts with TC-SF (19 min, IQR: 14-30) than TC-STSF (14 min, IQR: 8-25; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Both TC-SF and TC-STSF catheters are safe and effective in treating VAs. The use of CF sensing catheters did not improve safety or acute and long-term outcomes, but reduced fluoroscopy time in normal heart VA

2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: executive summary.

S

Management of Ventricular Arrhythmias in Patients with Mechanical Ventricular Support Devices

The use of mechanical ventricular support devices in the management of patients with advanced heart failure continues to increase. These devices have been shown to prolong life as a destination therapy and to increase survival when used as a bridge to transplantation. However, they are associated with a high rate of complications, including bleeding, infection, device malfunction, and ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). The mechanical support provided by the device typically allows for VAs to be well tolerated in the acute setting, though there are numerous long-term complications related to VAs such as ventricular remodeling, right ventricular failure in patients with left ventricular assist devices, and possibly increased mortality. Controversy exists as to the appropriate role of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in these patients. This review will focus on the management options available for patients with mechanical ventricular support devices and VAs

Prophylactic Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Tachycardia in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

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