Why the study?
To investigate the value of a notched unipolar electrogram in confirming the origin of premature ventricular contractions originating from the ventricular outflow tract during mapping and ablation.
Does the presence of a notched unipolar electrogram (N-uniEGM) predict successful radiofrequency ablation in patients with VOT-PVCs?
Does the presence of a notched unipolar electrogram (N-uniEGM) predict successful radiofrequency ablation in patients with VOT-PVCs?
The presence of a notched unipolar electrogram is a highly specific predictor of successful radiofrequency ablation for ventricular outflow tract premature ventricular contractions and is associated with shorter ablation times.
N-uniEGM may guide ablation targeting in VOT-PVCs; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the value of a notched unipolar electrogram (N-uniEGM) in confirming the origin of premature ventricular contractions originating from the ventricular outflow tract (VOT-PVC) during mapping and ablation procedures. METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled consecutive patients with symptomatic idiopathic frequent VOT-PVCs that underwent radiofrequency ablation. The characteristics of the uniEGM of the successful ablation targets were analysed. N-uniEGM was defined as the uniEGM presenting a QS morphology with ≥1 steep notches on the downstroke deflection. All patients were followed-up for 3 months post-ablation. N-uniEGM showed consistency with the outcomes of activation mapping and pace mapping. Patients with an N-uniEGM had an ablation success rate of 98.4% (122 of 124) and their ablation times were significantly shorter than those without an N-uniEGM (7.6 ± 3.8 s versus 15.8 ± 8.8 s, respectively). The sensitivity and specificity of N-uniEGM in predicting successful ablation of VOT-PVCs were 72.6% and 91.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: N-uniEGM was a highly specific and moderately sensitive predictor of successful radiofrequency ablation in patients with VOT-PVCs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: