Why the study?
Does catheter ablation prevent recurrence of ventricular tachycardia in patients with idiopathic right ventricular outflow tract tachycardia?
Does catheter ablation prevent recurrence of ventricular tachycardia in patients with idiopathic right ventricular outflow tract tachycardia?
Direct-current ablation for RVOT VT offers long-term success but carries serious risks like cardiac perforation, whereas radiofrequency ablation is safer but has a lower long-term success rate.
DC ablation risks perforation despite apparent success; case reports leave optimal energy source for RVOT VT open.
We performed catheter ablation in 10 consecutive patients with idiopathic monomorphic right ventricular tachycardia and studied the long-term outcome. All ventricular tachycardias had a left bundle branch block configuration with an inferior axis, and originated from right ventricular outflow. Antiarrhythmic drugs (3-6 drugs) had been ineffective in controlling ventricular tachycardia. The 2 patients who underwent direct-current ablation (2 shocks of 150 J) had no recurrence of ventricular tachycardia and did not require antiarrhythmic drugs during a follow-up of 56 and 51 months, respectively. Of the 8 patients who underwent radiofrequency ablation (30-40 watt, 20-40 sec, 2-15 application, using Inter Nova RA 50, 13.56 MHz), 1 patient had no recurrence of ventricular tachycardias and did not require antiarrhythmic drugs, 4 patients had no recurrence of ventricular tachycardias but did require anti-arrhythmic drugs, and 3 patients experienced recurrence of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia despite the use of antiarrhythmic drugs during a follow-up of 15-40 months. There were no complications except for cardiac perforation which occurred immediately after direct-current ablation in 1 patient. In conclusion, long-term success in preventing ventricular tachycardia was achievable with direct-current ablation, but this success was associated with serious risks, such as cardiac perforation. Radiofrequency ablation was safer than direct-current ablation, but had a lower long-term success rate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mukai et al. (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: