Why the study?
What is the initial outcome of radiofrequency ablation in patients with ventricular tachycardia of various etiologies?
What is the initial outcome of radiofrequency ablation in patients with ventricular tachycardia of various etiologies?
Radiofrequency ablation is an effective and safe treatment for ventricular tachycardia, with procedural success varying by underlying etiology.
Etiology-specific VT ablation success rates may inform procedural planning; leaves open need for randomized trials to guide etiology-based selection.
Background: Cardiac electrophysiologic study (EPS) and radiofrequency (RF) ablation have become an established mode of treatment for patients with refractory arrhythmias. These procedures are carried out regularly at the cardiac catheterization laboratory of Madras Medical Mission India. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate our experience with cardiac EPSs and Radiofrequency ablations (RFAs) of ventricular tachycardia (VT). Methods: This was a retrospective study carried out in the Cardiac Electrophysiology Department of the Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Madras Medical Mission, India. All cases diagnosed to have VT following cardiac EPS between January 2010 and April 2014 were selected for the study. The records which were obtained from the Cardiac Electrophysiology Clinical Research Office of Madras Medical Mission were reviewed. One hundred and thirteen cases were chosen for the analysis, using SPSS statistical software version 15. Results: There were 113 patients, comprised 78 males and 35 females. The mean age was 48.79 years. Common etiologic classes of VT were idiopathic outflow tract VT - 50.4%, ischemic heart disease - 20.4%, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ACMP) - 11.5%, and idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (IDCM) - 12.4%. Ablation was attempted in 92 (82.1%). The initial outcome was highest in IDCM, 87.5%, and least in ACMP, 50.0%. Conclusions: Treatment of VT by RFA is comparatively effective and safe.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Uwanuruochi et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: