Advertisement

Urgent catheter ablation in Japanese patients with mechanical circulatory supports suffering from refractory ventricular electrical storm

Published:October 10, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjcc.2022.09.010

      Highlights

      • Catheter ablation under mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is challenging.
      • Electromagnetic interference could be avoided in cases of the EnSite.
      • All patients could be bailed out from temporary MCS after the procedure.
      • The incidence of bleeding complications was high in MCS group.
      • Urgent catheter ablation for electrical storms is useful for early weaning of MCS.

      Abstract

      Background

      Therapeutic strategy using catheter ablation for ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VTAs) electrical storms in patients dependent on percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has not yet been established.

      Methods

      We reviewed the patients with or without requiring MCS who received urgent VTAs ablation in our institute between January 2020 and May 2022. Electrophysiological and clinical outcomes were compared between those with and without requiring MCS.

      Results

      Twenty procedures (16 patients, median 76 years, 13 males) were included. Six procedures using MCS underwent ablations and the other 14 procedures were performed without MCS. Although VTAs cycle lengths were not significantly different between the two groups, the incidence of hemodynamic stability was significantly higher in MCS group than in those without (83 % vs. 29 %, p = 0.024). Temporary MCS were explanted in all patients following the successful ablation, whereas the complication rates were higher in patients requiring MCS (67 % vs. 0 %, p = 0.001). Cumulative incidences of cardiovascular death and appropriate therapy of implantable cardioverter defibrillator within 90 days following the procedures were not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.071 and p = 0.063, respectively).

      Conclusion

      Urgent ablation might be a feasible bail out option for those dependent on MCS suffering from VTAs, although physicians should be on high alert for device-related bleeding.

      Graphical abstract

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Cardiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Guerra F.
        • Shkoza M.
        • Scappini L.
        • Flori M.
        • Capucci A.
        Role of electrical storm as a mortality and morbidity risk factor and its clinical predictors: a meta-analysis.
        Europace. 2014; 3: 347-353
        • Le Pennec-Prigent S.
        • Flecher E.
        • Auffret V.
        • Leurent G.
        • Daubert J.C.
        • Leclercq C.
        • et al.
        Effectiveness of extracorporeal life support for patients with cardiogenic shock due to intractable arrhythmic storm.
        Crit Care Med. 2017; 45 (e281-9)
        • Kowlgi G.N.
        • Cha Y.M.
        Management of ventricular electrical storm: a contemporary appraisal.
        Europace. 2020; 12: 1768-1780
        • Hu F.B.
        • Cui L.Q.
        Percutaneous left ventricular assist device vs. intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing cardiovascular intervention: a meta-analysis.
        Chronic Dis Transl Med. 2018; 4: 260-267
        • Grimaldi M.
        • Marino M.M.
        • Vitulano N.
        • Quadrini F.
        • Troisi F.
        • Caporusso N.
        • et al.
        Cardiopulmonary support during catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias with hemodynamic instability: the role of inducibility.
        Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021; 8747858
        • Sisti N.
        • Santoro A.
        • Carreras G.
        • Valente S.
        • Donzelli S.
        • Mandoli G.E.
        • et al.
        Ablation therapy for ventricular arrhythmias in patients with LVAD: multiple faces of an electrophysiological challenge.
        J Arrhythm. 2021; 3: 535-543
        • Dhruva S.S.
        • Ross J.S.
        • Mortazavi B.J.
        • Hurley N.C.
        • Krumholz H.M.
        • Curtis J.P.
        • et al.
        Association of use of an intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist device vs intra-aortic balloon pump with in-hospital mortality and major bleeding among patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
        JAMA. 2020; 8: 734-745
        • Ballout J.A.
        • Wazni O.M.
        • Tarakji K.G.
        • Saliba W.I.
        • Kanj M.
        • Diab M.
        • et al.
        Catheter ablation in patients with cardiogenic shock and refractory ventricular tachycardia.
        Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2020; 5e007669
        • Santangeli P.
        • Muser D.
        • Zado E.S.
        • Magnani S.
        • Khetpal S.
        • Hutchinson M.D.
        • et al.
        Acute hemodynamic decompensation during catheter ablation of scar-related ventricular tachycardia: incidence, predictors, and impact on mortality.
        Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2015; 1: 68-75
        • Mariani S.
        • Napp L.C.
        • Lo Coco V.
        • Delnoij T.S.R.
        • Luermans J.G.L.M.
        • Ter Bekke R.M.A.
        • et al.
        Mechanical circulatory support for life-threatening arrhythmia: a systematic review.
        Int J Cardiol. 2020; 308: 42-49
        • Akanni O.J.
        • Takeda K.
        • Truby L.K.
        • Kurlansky P.A.
        • Chiuzan C.
        • Han J.
        • et al.
        EC-VAD: combined use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and percutaneous microaxial pump left ventricular assist device.
        ASAIO J. 2019; 3: 219-226
        • Kusa S.
        • Miller M.A.
        • Whang W.
        • Enomoto Y.
        • Panizo J.G.
        • Iwasawa J.
        • et al.
        Outcomes of ventricular tachycardia ablation using percutaneous left ventricular assist devices.
        Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2017; 6e004717
        • Aryana A.
        • Gearoid O'Neill P.
        • Gregory D.
        • Scotti D.
        • Bailey S.
        • Brunton S.
        • et al.
        Procedural and clinical outcomes after catheter ablation of unstable ventricular tachycardia supported by a percutaneous left ventricular assist device.
        Heart Rhythm. 2014; 7: 1122-1130
        • Vaidya V.R.
        • Desimone C.V.
        • Madhavan M.
        • Noheria A.
        • Shahid M.
        • Walters J.
        • et al.
        Compatibility of electroanatomical mapping systems with a concurrent percutaneous axial flow ventricular assist device.
        J Cardiovasc Electorphysiol. 2014; 25: 781-786
        • Blockhaus C.
        • Waibler H.P.
        • Gülker J.E.
        • Meyer F.
        • Klues H.
        • Bufe A.
        • et al.
        Electromagnetic interference between left ventricular assist device and a three-dimensional mapping system overcome by “Hot mapping”.
        ASAIO J. 2018; 64: e61-e63
        • Luni F.K.
        • Zungsontiporn N.
        • Farid T.
        • Malik S.A.
        • Khan S.
        • Daniels J.
        • et al.
        Percutaneous left ventricular assist device support during ablation of ventricular tachycardia: a meta-analysis of current evidence.
        J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019; 6: 886-895
        • Chen Q.
        • Pollet M.
        • Mehta A.
        • Wang S.
        • Dean J.
        • Parenti J.
        • et al.
        Delayed removal of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device for patients undergoing catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia is associated with increased 90-day mortality.
        J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2021; 1: 49-56