Epicardial Radiofrequency Ablation Failure During Ablation Procedures for Ventricular Arrhythmias

Author:

Baldinger Samuel H.1,Kumar Saurabh1,Barbhaiya Chirag R.1,Mahida Saagar1,Epstein Laurence M.1,Michaud Gregory F.1,John Roy1,Tedrow Usha B.1,Stevenson William G.1

Affiliation:

1. From the Cardiovascular Division, Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA.

Abstract

Background— Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) from the epicardial space for ventricular arrhythmias is limited or impossible in some cases. Reasons for epicardial ablation failure and the effect on outcome have not been systematically analyzed. Methods and Results— We assessed reasons for epicardial RFA failure relative to the anatomic target area and the type of heart disease and assessed the effect of failed epicardial RFA on outcome after ablation procedures for ventricular arrhythmias in a large single-center cohort. Epicardial access was attempted during 309 ablation procedures in 277 patients and was achieved in 291 procedures (94%). Unlimited ablation in an identified target region could be performed in 181 cases (59%), limited ablation was possible in 22 cases (7%), and epicardial ablation was deemed not feasible in 88 cases (28%). Reasons for failed or limited ablation were unsuccessful epicardial access (6%), failure to identify an epicardial target (15%), proximity to a coronary artery (13%), proximity to the phrenic nerve (6%), and complications (<1%). Epicardial RFA was impeded in the majority of cases targeting the left ventricular summit region. Acute complications occurred in 9%. The risk for acute ablation failure was 8.3× higher (4.5–15.0; P <0.001) after no or limited epicardial RFA compared with unlimited RFA, and patients with unlimited epicardial RFA had better recurrence-free survival rates ( P <0.001). Conclusions— Epicardial RFA for ventricular arrhythmias is often limited even when pericardial access is successful. Variability of success is dependent on the target area, and the presence of factors limiting ablation is associated with worse outcomes.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Physiology (medical),Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3