Impella or TandemHeart use during VT ablation allowed more patients to undergo entrainment/activation mapping (82% vs 59%; P=0.046) and required fewer rescue shocks compared to IABP.
Observational (n=66)
Yes
Does the use of Impella or TandemHeart improve procedural mapping and ablation success compared to IABP in patients undergoing VT ablation?
The use of Impella or TandemHeart during VT ablation facilitates more extensive mapping and ablation of unstable VTs with fewer rescue shocks compared to IABP, though with a non-significant trend toward increased complications.
Absolute Event Rate: 82% vs 59%
p-value: p=0.046
Background— Data on relative safety, efficacy, and role of different percutaneous left ventricular assist devices for hemodynamic support during the ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation procedure are limited. Methods and Results— We performed a multicenter, observational study from a prospective registry including all consecutive patients (N=66) undergoing VT ablation with a percutaneous left ventricular assist devices in 6 centers in the United States. Patients with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP group; N=22) were compared with patients with either an Impella or a TandemHeart device (non-IABP group; N=44). There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between both the groups. In non-IABP group (1) more patients could undergo entrainment/activation mapping (82% versus 59%; P =0.046), (2) more number of unstable VTs could be mapped and ablated per patient (1.05±0.78 versus 0.32±0.48; P <0.001), (3) more number of VTs could be terminated by ablation (1.59±1.0 versus 0.91±0.81; P =0.007), and (4) fewer VTs were terminated with rescue shocks (1.9±2.2 versus 3.0±1.5; P =0.049) when compared with IABP group. Complications of the procedure trended to be more in the non-IABP group when compared with those in the IABP group (32% versus 14%; P =0.143). Intermediate term outcomes (mortality and VT recurrence) during 12±5-month follow-up were not different between both groups. Left ventricular ejection fraction ≤15% was a strong and independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (53% versus 4%; P <0.001). Conclusions— Impella and TandemHeart use in VT ablation facilitates extensive activation mapping of several unstable VTs and requires fewer rescue shocks during the procedure when compared with using IABP.
Reddy et al. (Sun,) conducted a observational in Ventricular tachycardia (n=66). Impella or TandemHeart (non-IABP) vs. Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was evaluated on Entrainment/activation mapping (p=0.046). Impella or TandemHeart use during VT ablation allowed more patients to undergo entrainment/activation mapping (82% vs 59%; P=0.046) and required fewer rescue shocks compared to IABP.