Why the study?
Data on success rates of electroanatomical mapping-guided stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation in emergency situations such as electrical storm are rare.
Does emergency EAM-guided STAR reduce VT burden in a patient with therapy-resistant electrical storm?
Does emergency EAM-guided STAR reduce VT burden in a patient with therapy-resistant electrical storm?
Emergency EAM-guided STAR is a feasible and potentially life-saving bail-out therapy for patients with therapy-refractory electrical storm, leading to targeted electrophysiological changes and VT suppression.
May offer rescue therapy in refractory post-MI electrical storm; leaves open need for prospective trials on efficacy and durability.
BACKGROUND: Electroanatomical mapping (EAM)-guided stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR) is a novel noninvasive therapy option for patients with monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) refractory to antiarrhythmic drugs and/or urgent catheter ablation (CA). Data on success rates in an emergency situation such as electrical storm (ES) are rare. We present a case of a patient with an initially very poor life expectancy after extensive myocardial infarction with therapy-resistant ES, not amendable for further antiarrhythmic drug therapy, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation, or repeated CA who was introduced to the radiation oncology department for emergency STAR as a bail-out therapy. METHODS: Target volume definition and transfer from EAM to CT were validated and quality assured with a semi-automatic, dedicated visualization tool (CARDIO-RT). Emergency STAR was performed with 25 Gy in the framework of the RAVENTA study. The VT burden gradually decreased after STAR; however, a second VT morphology occurred, which was successfully treated with EAM-guided CA 12 days after STAR. RESULTS: The second EAM-guided CA showed areas of low voltage in the irradiated segments, indicating a precise targeting and early functional response to STAR. The patient remained free of any VT recurrence or any radiation-related toxicities and in good general condition during the recent follow-up of 18 months. CONCLUSION: The case highlights the possible approach, caveats, difficulties, and prognosis of a patient severely affected by therapy-resistant VT in whom CA could not lead to VT suppression. Further studies of putative mechanisms of STAR in the acute and chronic phase of this novel therapy are warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaestner et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: