Efficacy and safety of ventricular tachycardia ablation with mechanical circulatory support compared with substrate-based ablation techniques

AIMS: Catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) can be limited by haemodynamic instability. In these cases, substrate-based ablation is typically performed. An alternative is to perform activation and entrainment mapping during VT supported by a percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pVAD). We sought to compare the complication and success rates of pVAD-assisted VT ablation with scar-based techniques. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirteen consecutive patients with haemodynamically unstable VT underwent pVAD-assisted ablation (pVAD group) and were retrospectively compared with 18-matched patients undergoing a substrate-based VT ablation (non-pVAD group). There was no significant difference in age or ejection fraction between the groups although pVAD patients tended to have more shocks in the preceding months. Procedure times were longer for the pVAD group. The number of monomorphic VTs induced was greater in the pVAD group (3.2 vs. 1.6, P= 0.04); however, after ablation, there was no difference in inducibility between the pVAD and non-pVAD group (10 of 13 vs. 12 of 18; 77 vs. 67%, P = 0.69). There was no difference in acute complications including stroke or death. At 9 ± 3 months, 1-year freedom from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks/therapies for sustained VT were similar (P= 0.96). In multivariable analysis, the absence of atrial fibrillation (hazard ratio=0.15, P= 0.04) was associated with a lower incidence of ICD shocks. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients, pVAD-assisted VT ablation guided by activation and entrainment mapping is a feasible alternative to substrate mapping and allows outcomes comparable to substrate mapping.