JACC. Clinical electrophysiology · 2026
Trigger- vs Substrate-Based Purkinje De-Networking for Ventricular Fibrillation: Insights From a Multicenter Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Kerley Robert N, Huang Henry D, Batnyam Uyanga, Nazer Babak, Sharma Esseim, Bradfield Jason S, Hayase Justin H, Vo Chau, Dhakal Bishnu P, Winterfield Jeffrey, Tedrow Usha B, Sauer William H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Purkinje-mediated ventricular fibrillation (VF) may arise from discrete fascicular triggers or diffuse abnormal Purkinje substrate. The relative performance of trigger-based vs substrate-based de-networking remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to compare outcomes of trigger-focused and substrate-based Purkinje de-networking for VF.
METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter cohort, 43 patients underwent Purkinje-targeted VF ablation using high-power, short-duration radiofrequency energy (90 W for 4 seconds or 50 W for 10 seconds). Patients were grouped according to ablation strategy: 1) trigger group (n = 19), ablation of the culprit premature ventricular complex-triggering fascicle; or 2) substrate group (n = 24), elimination of all abnormal Purkinje-like potentials. The primary endpoint was recurrence of polymorphic ventricular tachycardia/VF; secondary endpoints included conduction system complications. Median follow-up was 12.2 months (Q1-Q3: 8.8-18.8 months).
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Freedom from polymorphic ventricular tachycardia/VF was higher with substrate modification (22 of 24 [91.7%]; 95% CI: 73.0%-98.9%) than with trigger-based ablation (12 of 19 [63.2%]; 95% CI: 38.4%-83.7%; HR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.05-0.76]; log-rank test; P = 0.026). Both approaches significantly reduced arrhythmic burden (trigger group: 3.9 ± 0.8 episodes to 0.4 ± 0.2 episodes [P < 0.001]; substrate group: 4.8 ± 1.2 episodes to 0.1 ± 0.1 episodes [P < 0.001]). Conduction complications differed: new left bundle branch block occurred in 5 of 24 substrate patients (20.8%), whereas one posterior fascicular block occurred in the trigger group (1 of 19 [5.3%]; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Substrate-based de-networking was associated with greater freedom from ventricular tachycardia/VF but a higher rate of conduction system injury. Trigger-focused ablation may serve as an initial strategy in patients with identifiable premature ventricular complex triggers, with substrate modification reserved for refractory or nontriggered VF.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to compare outcomes of trigger-focused and substrate-based Purkinje de-networking for VF.
METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter cohort, 43 patients underwent Purkinje-targeted VF ablation using high-power, short-duration radiofrequency energy (90 W for 4 seconds or 50 W for 10 seconds). Patients were grouped according to ablation strategy: 1) trigger group (n = 19), ablation of the culprit premature ventricular complex-triggering fascicle; or 2) substrate group (n = 24), elimination of all abnormal Purkinje-like potentials. The primary endpoint was recurrence of polymorphic ventricular tachycardia/VF; secondary endpoints included conduction system complications. Median follow-up was 12.2 months (Q1-Q3: 8.8-18.8 months).
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Freedom from polymorphic ventricular tachycardia/VF was higher with substrate modification (22 of 24 [91.7%]; 95% CI: 73.0%-98.9%) than with trigger-based ablation (12 of 19 [63.2%]; 95% CI: 38.4%-83.7%; HR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.05-0.76]; log-rank test; P = 0.026). Both approaches significantly reduced arrhythmic burden (trigger group: 3.9 ± 0.8 episodes to 0.4 ± 0.2 episodes [P < 0.001]; substrate group: 4.8 ± 1.2 episodes to 0.1 ± 0.1 episodes [P < 0.001]). Conduction complications differed: new left bundle branch block occurred in 5 of 24 substrate patients (20.8%), whereas one posterior fascicular block occurred in the trigger group (1 of 19 [5.3%]; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Substrate-based de-networking was associated with greater freedom from ventricular tachycardia/VF but a higher rate of conduction system injury. Trigger-focused ablation may serve as an initial strategy in patients with identifiable premature ventricular complex triggers, with substrate modification reserved for refractory or nontriggered VF.