Why the study?
The management of refractory electrical storm requiring mechanical circulation support remains a clinical challenge in structural heart disease.
Does rescue ablation for refractory electrical storm requiring mechanical circulation support result in comparable outcomes to ablation without mechanical circulation support in patients with structural heart disease?
Does rescue ablation for refractory electrical storm requiring mechanical circulation support result in comparable outcomes to ablation without mechanical circulation support in patients with structural heart disease?
Rescue ablation for refractory electrical storm requiring mechanical circulation support is associated with high 30-day mortality due to pumping failure, but successfully prevents VA recurrences with a 1-year VA prognosis comparable to patients not requiring support.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support rescue ablation in refractory storm despite mortality risk; leaves open causal benefit versus standard care in RCTs.
BACKGROUND: The management of refractory electrical storm (ES) requiring mechanical circulation support (MCS) remains a clinical challenge in structural heart disease (SHD). OBJECTIVE: The study sought to explore the 30-day and 1-year outcome of rescue ablation for refractory ES requiring MCS in SHD. METHODS: A total of 81 patients (mean age: 55.3 ± 18.9, 73 men [90.1%]) undergoing ablation were investigated, including 26 patients with ES requiring MCS (group 1) and 55 patients without (group 2). The 30-day and 1-year outcome, including mortality and recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VAs) receiving appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillators therapies, were assessed. RESULTS: The patients in group 1 were characterized by older age, more ischemic cardiomyopathies, worse left ventricular ejection fraction, and more comorbidities. Thirty days after ablation, overall events were seen in 15 patients (mortality in 10 and recurrent VA in 7), including pumping failure-related mortality in 6 (60%). During a 30-day follow-up, higher mortality was noted in group 1. After a 1-year follow-up, in spite of the higher mortality in group 1 (P < .001), the overall events and VA recurrences were similar between these two groups (P = .154 and P = .466, respectively). There was a significant reduction of VA burden in both groups and two patients had recurrent ES. CONCLUSION: Higher 30-day mortality was observed in patients undergoing rescue ablation for refractory ES requiring MCS, and pumping failure was the major cause of periprocedural death. Rescue ablation successfully prevented VA recurrences and resulted in a comparable 1-year prognosis between ES with and without MCS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chung et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: