DOI 10.1007/s10840-020-00915-7
Catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia in patients with electrical storm, with a special focus on patients with Chagas disease.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND
There are few reports on the benefits of catheter ablation (CA) in patients with electrical storm (ES). None of these publications included patients with Chagas disease (ChD). Our aims are to analyze (1) all the cases of ES treated with CA and (2) the subgroup of patients with ChD.
METHODS
Prospective analysis of consecutive patients with ES due to monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) treated with CA.
RESULTS
We included 38 patients: 28 males; median age of 63.5 (IQR 55-71) years old; ejection fraction (LVEF) 0.30 (0.25-0.40). Sixteen patients (42.1%) had ChD. The patients experienced 21 (15-37) VT episodes and received 7 (3-13) ICD shocks before CA. Forty-six procedures were performed (7 required epicardial access). All patients experienced ES suppression after CA. After 35 (10-64) months of follow-up (1.21 procedures per patient), 23 patients (60.5%) remain free from any VT; 35 patients (92.1%) were free from ES, and 11 patients (28.9%) died from non-arrhythmic causes. One patient underwent heart transplantation. Patients with ChD were younger (60 vs. 67 years old; p = 0.033), significantly more women (50% vs. 9.1%; p = 0.005), and had higher LVEF (0.40 vs. 0.28; p < 0.001) than the other patients. Long-term outcome of ChD patients was similar to that of the overall population. Only age and LVEF independently predicted mortality.
CONCLUSION
CA was associated with acute ventricular arrhythmia suppression in all patients with ES. Freedom rates from ES and VT were 92.1% and 60.5% respectively. Despite having a lower-risk clinical profile, patients with ChD had a comparable outcome to that of the other patients.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.