Why the study?
The study aimed to investigate an appropriate catheter manipulation approach for ventricular arrhythmias originating from the left ventricular epicardium adjacent to the transitional area from the great cardiac vein to the anterior interventricular vein.
Does the Swartz sheath support approach improve successful ablation rates of ventricular arrhythmias originating from the DGCV-AIV compared to the conventional non-Swartz sheath approach?
Does the Swartz sheath support approach improve successful ablation rates of ventricular arrhythmias originating from the DGCV-AIV compared to the conventional non-Swartz sheath approach?
The Swartz sheath support approach significantly improves the ability of the ablation catheter to reach target sites and successfully eliminate ventricular arrhythmias originating from the DGCV-AIV compared to the conventional approach.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
SS approach may aid DGCV-AIV VA ablation; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
Aims: This study aimed to investigate an appropriate catheter manipulation approach for ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) originating from the left ventricular epicardium adjacent to the transitional area from the great cardiac vein to the anterior interventricular vein (DGCV-AIV). Methods: A total of 123 patients with DGCV-AIV VAs were retrospectively analyzed. All these patients underwent routine mapping and ablation by conventional approach [Non-Swartz sheath support (NS) approach] firstly. In the situation of the distal portion of the coronary venous system (CVS) not being accessed or a good target site not being obtained, the Swartz sheath support (SS) approach was attempted alternatively. If this still failed, the hydrophilic coated guidewire and left coronary angiographic catheter-guided deep engagement of Swartz sheath in GCV to support ablation catheter was performed. Results: A total of 103 VAs (103/123, 83.74%) were successfully eliminated in DGCV-AIV. By NS approach, the tip of the catheter reached DGCV in 39.84% VAs (49/123), reached target sites in 35.87% VAs (44/123), and achieved successful ablation in 30.89% VAs (38/123), which was significantly lower than by SS approach (88.61% (70/79), 84.81 % (67/79), and 75.95% (60/79), P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in complication occurrence between the NS approach and the SS approach (4/123, 3.25% vs. 7/79, 8.86%, p > 0.05). The angle between DGCV and AIV <83° indicated an inaccessible AIV by catheter tip with a predictive value of 94.5%. Width/height of coronary venous system>0.69 more favored a SS approach with a predictive value of 87%. Conclusion: For radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of VAs arising from DGCV-AIV, the SS approach facilitates the catheter tip to achieve target sites and contributes to a successful ablation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zheng et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: