P5699Endocardial vs. epicardial ventricular tachycardia ablation: a propensity score matched analysis

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Direct comparisons of long-term clinical outcomes of endocardial vs. epicardial catheter ablation techniques for drug-resistant ventricular tachycardia (VT) have been scarcely reported. We aim to compare the long-term efficacy and safety of endocardial vs. epicardial catheter ablation (END-ABL and EPI-ABL, respectively) in a propensity score (PS) matched population. Methods Single-center observational registry including 215 consecutive patients who underwent END-ABL (181) or EPI-ABL (n=34) for drug-resistant VT between January 2007 and June 2018. Efficacy endpoint was defined as VT-free survival after catheter ablation, while safety outcomes were defined by 30-days mortality and procedure-related complications. A propensity score was used to match patients in a 1:1 fashion according to the following variables: VT storm at presentation, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV at presentation, ischemic ethology, presence of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), and previous endocardial catheter ablation. Independent predictors of VT recurrence were assessed by Cox regression. Results The PS yielded two groups of 31 patients each well matched for baseline characteristics (Table 1). Over a median follow-up of 2 years (IQR 1–3), 58% (n=18) ENDO-ABL patients had VT recurrence vs. 26% (n=8) in the EPI-ABL group (P=0.020). The yearly rates of VT recurrence were 28%/year for END-ABL vs. 11%/year for EPI-ABL (P=0.021). Multivariate survival analysis identified previous endocardial ablation (HR= 3.52; 95% CI 1.17–10.54, p=0.026) and VT storm at presentation (HR=3.57; 95% CI 1.50–8.50, p=0.004) as independent predictors of VT recurrence. EPI-ABL was independently associated with fewer VT recurrences (HR=0.28; 95 CI 0.12–0.69, p=0.005), but only in patients with a previous endocardial ablation (p for interaction = 0.004) – Figure A. No patients died at 30-days post-procedure. Hospital length of stay was similar between END-ABL and EPI-ABL (5 vs. 4 days respectively, p=0.139), as was the complication rate (6.5% vs. 12.9% respectively, p=0.390), although driven by different causes (Table 1). Conclusion VT storm at presentation and previous catheter ablation were independent predictors of VT recurrence. In patients with a previous failed endocardial catheter ablation, epicardial ablation seems to provide greater VT-free survival than repeat endocardial ablation. Both strategies seem equally safe.