Key result
Shorter epi-EAS to ECS distance predicts successful ablation of epicardial ventricular arrhythmias in ~72% of cases.
Why the study?
What anatomical and electrophysiological factors predict successful catheter ablation of left ventricular summit ventricular arrhythmias at the endocardial closest site versus the endocardial earliest activation site?
Observational (n=58)
What anatomical and electrophysiological factors predict successful catheter ablation of left ventricular summit ventricular arrhythmias at the endocardial closest site versus the endocardial earliest activation site?
Shorter anatomical distances predict successful ablation at the endocardial closest site, whereas earlier local electrograms predict success at the endocardial earliest activation site for left ventricular summit arrhythmias.
May guide ablation approach selection in LV summit PVCs; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.
AIMS: Catheter ablation (CA) of idiopathic ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) from the epicardial left ventricular summit is challenging. The endocardial approach targets two sites: the endocardial closest site (ECS) to the epicardial earliest activation site (epi-EAS) and the endocardial earliest activation site (endo-EAS). We aimed to differentiate between cases where CA at the ECS was effective and where CA at the endo-EAS yielded success. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients (47 men; age 60 ± 13 years) were analysed with VAs in which the EAS was observed in the coronary venous system (CVS). Overall, VAs were successfully eliminated in 42 (72%) patients: 8 in the CVS, 8 where the ECS matched with the endo-EAS, 11 at the ECS, and 15 at the endo-EAS. A successful ECS ablation was associated with a shorter epi-EAS-ECS distance (10.2 ± 4.7 vs. 18.8 ± 5.3 mm; P < 0.001) and shorter epi-EAS-left main coronary trunk (LMT) ostial distance (20.3 ± 7.6 vs. 30.3 ± 8.4 mm; P = 0.005), with optimal cut-off values of ≤12.6 and ≤24.0 mm, respectively. A successful endo-EAS ablation was associated with an earlier electrogram at the endo-EAS [23 (8, 36) vs. 15 (0, 19) ms preceding the QRS; P < 0.001] and shorter epi-EAS-endo-EAS interval [6 (1, 8) vs. 22 (12, 25) ms; P < 0.001], with optimal cut-off values of ≥18 and ≤9 ms, respectively. CONCLUSION: Shorter anatomical distances between the epi-EAS and ECS, and between the epi-EAS and LMT ostium, predict a successful ECS ablation. The prematurity of the endo-EAS electrogram and a shorter interval between the epi-EAS and endo-EAS predicted a successful endo-EAS ablation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Watanabe et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Idiopathic ventricular arrhythmias from the epicardial left ventricular summit (n=58). Catheter ablation (anatomical vs. electrophysiological approach) was evaluated on Successful elimination of ventricular arrhythmias. Shorter anatomical distances between the epi-EAS and ECS (P<0.001) predicted successful ECS ablation, while earlier endo-EAS electrograms (P<0.001) predicted successful endo-EAS ablation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: