Open surgical ablation of ventricular tachycardia: Utility and feasibility of contemporary mapping and ablation tools.

BACKGROUND: Ventricular tachycardia (VT) catheter ablation success may be limited when transcutaneous epicardial access is contraindicated. Surgical ablation (SurgAbl) is an option, but ablation guidance is limited without simultaneously acquired electrophysiological data. OBJECTIVE: We describe our SurgAbl experience utilizing contemporary electroanatomic mapping (EAM) among patients with refractory VT storm. METHODS: Consecutive patients with recurrent VT despite antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) and prior ablation, for whom percutaneous epicardial access was contraindicated, underwent open SurgAbl using intraoperative EAM guidance. RESULTS: Eight patients were included, among whom mean age was 63 ± 5 years, all were male, mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 39% ± 12%, and 2 (25%) had ischemic cardiomyopathy. Reasons for surgical epicardial access included dense adhesions owing to prior cardiac surgery, hemopericardium, or pericarditis (n = 6); or planned left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation at time of SurgAbl (n = 2). Cryoablation guided by real-time EAM was performed in all. Goals of clinical VT noninducibility or core isolation were achieved in 100%. VT burden was significantly reduced, from median 15 to 0 events in the month pre- and post-SurgAbl (P = .01). One patient underwent orthotopic heart transplantation for recurrent VT storm 2 weeks post-SurgAbl. Over mean follow-up of 3.4 ± 1.7 years, VT storm-free survival was achieved in 6 (75%); all continued AADs, although at lower dose. CONCLUSION: Surgical mapping and ablation of refractory VT with use of contemporary EAM is feasible and effective, particularly among patients with contraindication to percutaneous epicardial access or with another indication for cardiac surgery.

Repeat ablation of refractory ventricular arrhythmias in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy: Impact of midmyocardial substrate and role of adjunctive ablation techniques.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple ablations are often necessary to manage ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) in nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) patients. We assessed characteristics and outcomes and role of adjunctive, nonstandard ablation in repeat VA ablation (RAbl) in NICM. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive NICM patients undergoing RAbl were analyzed, with characteristics of the last VA ablations compared between those undergoing 1 versus multiple-repeat ablations (1-RAbl vs. >1RAbl), and between those with or without midmyocardial substrate (MMS). VA-free survival was compared. Eighty-eight patients underwent 124 RAbl, 26 with > 1RAbl, and 26 with MMS. 1-RAbl and > 1-RAbl groups were similar in age (57 ± 16 vs. 57 ± 17 years; P = 0.92), males (76% vs. 69%; P = 0.60), LVEF (40 ± 17% vs. 40 ± 18%; P = 0.96), and amiodarone use (31% vs. 46%, P = 0.22). One-year VA freedom between 1-RAbl vs. > 1RAbl was similar (82% vs. 80%; P = 0.81); adjunctive ablation was utilized more in >1RAbl (31% vs. 11%, P = 0.02), and complication rates were higher (27% vs. 7%, P = 0.01), most due to septal substrate and anticipated heart block. >1-RAbl patients had more MMS (62% vs. 16%, P < 0.01). Although MMS was associated with worse VA-free survival after 1-RAbl (43% vs. 69%, P = 0.01), when >1RAbl was performed, more often with nonstandard ablation, VA-free survival was comparable to non-MMS patients (85% vs. 81%; P = 0.69). More RAbls were required in MMS versus non-MMS patients (2.00 ± 0.98 vs. 1.16 ± 0.37; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: For NICM patients with recurrent, refractory VAs despite previous ablation, effective arrhythmia control can safely be achieved with subsequent ablation, although >1 repeat procedure with adjunctive ablation is often required, especially with MMS.