Nuno Cabanelas

Ablation of frequent PVC in patients meeting criteria for primary prevention ICD implant: Safety of withholding the implant

BACKGROUND Premature ventricular complex (PVC) ablation has been shown to improve left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and New York Heart Association functional class in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Both are considered key variables in predicting risk of sudden cardiac death. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to assess whether ablation might remove the primary prevention (PP) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) indication in patients with frequent PVC. METHODS Sixty-six consecutive patients with PP-ICD indication and frequent PVC [33 (50%) men; mean age 53 ± 13 years; 11 (17%) with ischemic heart disease] underwent PVC ablation. The ICD was withheld and the indication was reevaluated at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS LVEF progressively improved from 28% ± 4% at baseline to 42% ± 12% at 12 months (P < .001). New York Heart Association functional class improved from 2 patients with NYHA functional class I (3%) at baseline to 35 (53%) at 12 months (P < .001). The brain natriuretic peptide level decreased from 246 ± 187 to 176 ± 380 pg/mL (P = .004). The PP-ICD indication was removed in 42 patients (64%) during follow-up, from 38 (92%) of them at 6 months, showing an independent association with baseline PVC burden and successful sustained ablation. In patients with successful sustained ablation, a cutoff value of 13% PVC burden had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 93% (area under the curve 99%) for removing ICD indication postablation. No sudden cardiac deaths or malignant ventricular arrhythmias were observed. CONCLUSION In patients with frequent PVC and PP-ICD indication, ablation improves LVEF and, in most cases, allows removal of the indication. Withholding the ICD and reevaluating within 6 months of ablation seems to be a safe and appropriate strategy.

Impact of left atrial volume, sphericity, and fibrosis on the outcome of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation

To investigate the relation between left atrial (LA) volume, sphericity, and fibrotic content derived from contrast‐enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CE‐CMR) and their impact on the outcome of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF).

Preferential regional distribution of atrial fibrosis in posterior wall around left inferior pulmonary vein as identified by late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with atrial fibrillation

Aims Left atrial (LA) fibrosis can be identified by late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance (LGE-CMR) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there is limited information about anatomical fibrosis distribution in the left atrium. The aim is to determine whether there is a preferential spatial distribution of fibrosis in the left atrium in patients with AF. Methods and results A 3-Tesla LGE-CMR was performed in 113 consecutive patients referred for AF ablation. Images were post-processed and analysed using ADAS-AF software (Galgo Medical), which allows fibrosis identification in 3D colour-coded shells. A regional semiautomatic LA parcellation software was used to divide the atrial wall into 12 segments: 1-4, posterior wall; 5-6, floor; 7, septal wall; 8-11, anterior wall; 12, lateral wall. The presence and amount of fibrosis in each segment was obtained for analysis. After exclusions for artefacts and insufficient image quality, 76 LGE-MRI images (68%) were suitable for fibrosis analysis. Segments 3 and 5, closest to the left inferior pulmonary vein, had significantly higher fibrosis (40.42% ± 23.96 and 25.82% ± 21.24, respectively; P < 0.001), compared with other segments. Segments 8 and 10 in the anterior wall contained the lowest fibrosis (2.54% ± 5.78 and 3.82% ± 11.59, respectively; P < 0.001). Age >60 years was significantly associated with increased LA fibrosis [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19-8.39, P = 0.04] and persistent AF approached significance (95% CI -0.19% to 7.83%, P = 0.08). Conclusion In patients with AF, the fibrotic area is preferentially located at the posterior wall and floor around the antrum of the left inferior pulmonary vein. Age >60 years was associated with increased fibrosis.

Long-term benefit of first-line peri-implantable cardioverter–defibrillator implant ventricular tachycardia-substrate ablation in secondary prevention patients

Aims This study assessed the benefit of peri-implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implant ventricular tachycardia (VT)-substrate ablation in patients with structural heart disease (SHD). Methods and results Patients with SHD and indication for secondary prevention ICD implant were prospectively included. Patients presenting with incessant and/or slow VT or frequent (≥2) VT episodes who underwent peri-ICD VT-substrate ablation (the scar dechannelling technique) were compared with those who received ICD alone and did not meet ablation criteria. The primary endpoint was any sustained VT/ICD therapy during follow-up. Of 206 patients included (43.2% non-ischaemic), 70 were assigned to ablation and 136 received ICD implant alone. During a mean follow-up of 45.6 ± 24.7 months, the primary endpoint was more frequent in the non-ablation group (47.1 vs. 22.9%; P< 0.0001). Higher VT recurrence-free survival rate [log-rank P= 0.001; HR = 0.42 (0.24-0.73), P= 0.002] and ICD shock-free survival rate [log-rank P= 0.007; HR = 0.36 (0.17-0.78); P = 0.01] were observed in the ablation group. Higher relative risk reduction was observed in ischaemic [HR = 0.38 (0.18-0.83); P = 0.015] vs. non-ischaemic patients [HR = 0.49 (0.23-1.01); P = 0.08]. Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35% showed no differences in VT recurrence between treatment groups (log-rank P = 0.213) although VT burden during follow-up was lower in the ablation group [median (interquartile range) 1 (1-3) vs. 4 (1-10) VT episodes; P = 0.05]. Conclusion First-line peri-ICD implant VT-substrate ablation was associated with decreased VT recurrence and ICD shocks during long-term follow-up in patients with SHD and indication for secondary prevention ICD implant, especially in ischaemic patients. In patients with LVEF <35%, no benefit was observed in terms of VT recurrence-free survival, although VT burden during follow-up was lower in the ablation group.