Why the study?
Outcomes of PVI alone remain suboptimal in non-paroxysmal AF, and more widespread real-world experience is needed to clarify the procedural success, technical requirements, and complications of adjunctive VOM ethanol infusion.
This report describes a single-center experience with vein of Marshall ethanol infusion as an adjunct to catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation, focusing on technical approach, success rates, and complications.
Since the discovery of pulmonary venous triggers,[1](#ref-0001) catheter ablation with pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has matured as an important therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However despite advances in ablation technology, for non-paroxysmal forms of AF, outcomes remain suboptimal with PVI alone.[](#ref-0002)2 , 3 Adjunctive strategies addressing the atrial substrate or targeting of non-pulmonary vein triggers have not shown consistent efficacy across studies and may carry additional complication risks or higher rates of recurrent organized atrial tachycardias. Recently, ethanol infusion into the vein of Marshall (VOM) has gained popularity with the publication of the VENUS randomized trial[4](#ref-0004) and the positive accumulating experience reported from a single center in Bordeaux.[](#ref-0005)5 , 6 However, adoption has been tempered due to the technical requirements of the procedure and unclear dominant mechanism of putative benefit. Thus, more widespread experience is needed to clarify the real-world impact on procedural success. This report aims to describe a single center experience with VOM ethanol infusion over three years, with description of technical approach, associated procedural success rates, and complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leyton‐Mange et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: