Key result
Combined endo-epicardial ablation shows no benefit over endocardial-only ablation for arrhythmia recurrence in ARVC.
Why the study?
The study aimed to compare epicardial and endocardial surface area of local abnormal ventricular activity and low voltage zones, and assess the effectiveness of endocardial versus combined endo-epicardial ablation of ventricular arrhythmias in ARVC patients.
Does combined endo-epicardial ablation improve freedom from ventricular arrhythmia recurrence compared to endocardial-only ablation in patients with ARVC?
Case-Control (n=20)
No
Does combined endo-epicardial ablation improve freedom from ventricular arrhythmia recurrence compared to endocardial-only ablation in patients with ARVC?
Absolute Event Rate: 70% vs 100%
p-value: p=>0.05
Endocardial-only ablation appears to be an effective strategy for managing ventricular arrhythmias in ARVC patients, with no significant difference in recurrence compared to a combined endo-epicardial approach in this small cohort.
Endocardial-only ablation may suffice in ARVC; leaves open whether combined endo-epicardial ablation improves outcomes in larger randomized trials.
Purpose : to compare epicardial and endocardial surface area of local abnormal ventricular activity (LAVA) and low voltage zone (LVZ) and effectiveness of endocardial versus combined endo-epicardial ablation of ventricular arrhythmias in ARVC patients. Methods : a prospective observational “case-control” study comprised 20 patients with ARVC and ventricular arrhythmias referred to catheter ablation. The study group with epicardial approach (EPI group) comprised 10 patients with sustained VT, who signed informed consent for the epicardial access. The control group (ENDO group) comprised 10 patients with sustained VT or frequent symptomatic premature ventricular contractions (PVC). Electroanatomical voltage mapping and LAVA ablation was performed. Results : the patient mean age was 41.4±13.8 years, 70% males; 90% patients in the EPI group had sustained VT, 50% - in the ENDO group. In the EPI group the endocardial unipolar low voltage zone area (LVZ) significantly prevailed over the bipolar endocardial LVZ area: 75.4 cm 2 [IQR: 23.2; 211.9] vs 6.7 cm 2 [IQR: 4.4; 35.5] (Р=0.009). In the ENDO group the LVZ area on unipolar map had a trend toward the prevalence over the bipolar area, but was not statistically different: 12.7 cm 2 (IQR: 0; 46.3) vs 3.65 cm 2 (IQR: 0; 46.3) (Р>0.05). The epicardial bipolar LVZ area prevailed over unipolar epicardial LVZ area: 65.3 cm 2 [IQR: 55.6; 91.3] vs 6.7 cm 2 [IQR: 4.4; 35.3] (Р=0.005). Non-inducibility of any ventricular arrhythmia was achieved in 90% of EPI patients and in 80% of ENDO cases. The median follow-up period was 22.3±10.5 months. During a mean follow-up period freedom of ventricular arrhythmia recurrence was 70% in the EPI group and 100% in the control group (Р>0.05). Conclusion : Although there was a significant difference in bipolar LVZ areas between endo- and epicardial maps, our series showed that endocardial only ablation is an effective strategy in ventricular arrhythmia management in ARVC patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Симонова et al. (2020) conducted a case-control in Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) with ventricular arrhythmias (n=20). Combined endo-epicardial catheter ablation vs. Endocardial only catheter ablation was evaluated on Freedom from ventricular arrhythmia recurrence (p=>0.05). Combined endo-epicardial ablation did not significantly differ from endocardial-only ablation in providing freedom from ventricular arrhythmia recurrence (70% vs 100%, P>0.05) in patients with ARVC.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: