Why the study?
Septal ventricular tachycardia in structural heart disease is a challenging ablation target, and pulsed field ablation offers potential advantages such as shorter procedure times and deeper tissue penetration.
Does focal pulsed field ablation improve acute procedural success in patients with structural heart disease and drug-refractory septal ventricular tachycardia?
Does focal pulsed field ablation improve acute procedural success in patients with structural heart disease and drug-refractory septal ventricular tachycardia?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Focal pulsed field ablation is a fast and effective approach for treating drug-refractory septal ventricular tachycardia in patients with structural heart disease, achieving 100% acute success.
Background Ventricular tachycardia (VT) arising from the interventricular septum in patients with structural heart disease represents a challenging ablation target. Pulsed field ablation (PFA) offers potential advantages including shorter procedure times and deeper tissue penetration, which is particularly relevant for septal VT. Purpose To assess the efficacy and efficiency of focal pulsed field ablation for drug-refractory septal VT in structural heart disease. Methods We performed focal PFA in eight consecutive patients with structural heart disease (ischemic cardiomyopathy 25%, non-ischemic cardiomyopathy 75%) and septal VT. Mean age was 70±10 years. Focal monopolar PFA was delivered at 25 ampere via endocardial approach. Results Acute procedural success was achieved in 100% of patients (8/8). Mean procedure time was 118±35 minutes, demonstrating procedural efficiency. Mean number of PFA applications was 59±17. During 3-month follow-up, one patient developed slower VT. One pericardial tamponade occurred as a major complication. Conclusions In this high-risk population with structural heart disease and septal VT, focal pulsed field ablation demonstrates excellent effectiveness with notably short procedure times, supporting its role as a valuable ablation modality for this therapeutically challenging patient subgroup.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dinshaw et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: