Intramural needle ablation or repeated standard ablation in patients referred for repeat ablation of scar-related ventricular tachycardia.

Abstract

When ventricular tachycardia (VT) recurs after standard RF ablation (sRFA) some patients benefit from repeat sRFA, whereas others warrant advanced methods such as intramural needle ablation (INA). Our objectives are to assess the utility of repeat sRFA and to clarify the benefit of INA when repeat sRFA fails in patients with VT due to structural heart disease. In consecutive patients who were prospectively enrolled in a study for INA for recurrent sustained monomorphic VT despite sRFA, repeat sRFA was considered first. INA was performed during the same procedure if repeat sRFA failed or no targets for sRFA were identified. Of 85 patients enrolled, acute success with repeat sRFA was achieved in 30 patients (35%), and during the 6-month follow-up, 87% (20/23) were free of VT hospitalization, 78% were free of any VT, and 7 were lost to follow-up. INA was performed in 55 patients (65%) after sRFA failed, or no endocardial targets were found abolished or modified inducible VT in 35/55 patients (64%). During follow-up, 72% (39/54) were free of VT hospitalization, 41% were free of any VT, and 1 was lost to follow-up. Overall, 59 out of 77 (77%) patients were free of hospitalization and 52% were free of any VT. Septal-origin VTs were more likely to need INA, whereas RV and papillary muscle VTs were less likely to require INA. Repeat sRFA was beneficial in 23% (18/77) of patients with recurrent sustained VT who were referred for INA. The availability of INA increased favorable outcomes to 52%.