Key result
Lower RVI identifies earliest RV activation and predicts clinical VT events in BrS and ARVC.
Why the study?
Does the re-entry vulnerability index (RVI) predict the earliest endocardial activation site of VT and occurrence of haemodynamically significant ventricular arrhythmias in patients with right ventricular disorders?
Observational (n=33)
Does the re-entry vulnerability index (RVI) predict the earliest endocardial activation site of VT and occurrence of haemodynamically significant ventricular arrhythmias in patients with right ventricular disorders?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The re-entry vulnerability index (RVI) can reliably identify the earliest RV endocardial activation site of VT in Brugada Syndrome and ARVC, and predict the incidence of haemodynamically significant arrhythmias.
BackgroundThe re-entry vulnerability index (RVI) is a recently proposed activation-repolarization metric designed to quantify tissue susceptibility to re-entry. This study aimed to test feasibility of an RVI-based algorithm to predict the earliest endocardial activation site of ventricular tachycardia (VT) during electrophysiological studies and occurrence of haemodynamically significant ventricular arrhythmias in follow-up.MethodsPatients with Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy (ARVC) (n = 11), Brugada Syndrome (BrS) (n = 13) and focal RV outflow tract VT (n = 9) underwent programmed stimulation with unipolar electrograms recorded from a non-contact array in the RV.ResultsLowest values of RVI co-localised with VT earliest activation site in ARVC/BrS but not in focal VT. The distance between region of lowest RVI and site of VT earliest site (Dmin) was lower in ARVC/BrS than in focal VT (6.8 ± 6.7 mm vs 26.9 ± 13.3 mm, p = 0.005). ARVC/BrS patients with inducible VT had lower Global-RVI (RVIG) than those who were non-inducible (−54.9 ± 13.0 ms vs −35.9 ± 8.6 ms, p = 0.005) or those with focal VT (−30.6 ± 11.5 ms, p = 0.001). Patients were followed up for 112 ± 19 months. Those with clinical VT events had lower Global-RVI than both ARVC and BrS patients without VT (−54.5 ± 13.5 ms vs −36.2 ± 8.8 ms, p = 0.007) and focal VT patients (−30.6 ± 11.5 ms, p = 0.002).ConclusionsRVI reliably identifies the earliest RV endocardial activation site of VT in BrS and ARVC but not focal ventricular arrhythmias and predicts the incidence of haemodynamically significant arrhythmias. Therefore, RVI may be of value in predicting VT exit sites and hence targeting of re-entrant arrhythmias.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martin et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy, Brugada Syndrome, focal RV outflow tract VT (n=33). Re-entry vulnerability index (RVI) mapping vs. Patients without clinical VT events was evaluated on Global-RVI in patients with clinical VT events vs ARVC/BrS patients without VT (p=0.007).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: