Key result
Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support during catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia does not significantly improve outcomes and appears to have a higher complication rate.
Why the study?
Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used intra-operatively during catheter ablation for recurrent ventricular tachycardias, prompting a review of experiences across different clinical scenarios.
Does percutaneous mechanical circulatory support improve outcomes in patients with structural heart disease undergoing catheter ablation for recurrent ventricular tachycardias?
Does percutaneous mechanical circulatory support improve outcomes in patients with structural heart disease undergoing catheter ablation for recurrent ventricular tachycardias?
Routine use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support during VT ablation does not clearly improve outcomes and may increase complications, suggesting it should be reserved for specific high-risk scenarios.
PMCS during VT ablation needs cautious use outside trials; leaves open optimal patient selection and timing.
Catheter ablation (CA) has become an established treatment strategy for managing recurrent ventricular tachycardias (VTs) in patients with structural heart disease. In recent years, percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (PMCS) devices have been increasingly used intra-operatively to improve the ablation outcome. One indication would be rescue therapy for patients who develop haemodynamic deterioration during the ablation. However, more efforts are focused on identifying subjects who are at high risk of such deterioration and could benefit from the pre-emptive use of the PMCS. The third reason to use PMCS could be the inability to identify diffuse substrate, especially in non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy. This paper reviews available experiences using various types of PMCS in different clinical scenarios. Although PMCS allows mapping during VT, it does not significantly influence acute outcomes and not convincingly long-term outcomes. On the contrary, the complication rate appears to be higher in PMCS cohorts. Our data suggest that even in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction, the substrate modification can be performed without the need for general anaesthesia and risk of haemodynamic decompensation. In end-stage heart failure associated with the electrical storm, implantation of a left ventricular assist device (or PMCS with a transition to the left ventricular assist device) might be the preferred strategy before CA. In high-risk patients who are not potential candidates for these treatment options, radiotherapy could be considered as a bail-out treatment of recurrent VTs. These approaches should be studied in prospective trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kautzner et al. (2024) conducted a review in Recurrent ventricular tachycardias in patients with structural heart disease. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (PMCS) was evaluated. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support during catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia does not significantly improve outcomes and appears to have a higher complication rate.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: