Prognosis of patients with and without septal substrate after VT ablation due to electrical storm

J. Mueller, K. Nentwich, A. Berkovitz, P. Halbfass, E. Ene, K. Sonne, G. Simu, I. Chakarov, T. Deneke
{"title":"Prognosis of patients with and without septal substrate after VT ablation due to electrical storm","authors":"J. Mueller, K. Nentwich, A. Berkovitz, P. Halbfass, E. Ene, K. Sonne, G. Simu, I. Chakarov, T. Deneke","doi":"10.1093/europace/euac053.366","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n Type of funding sources: None.\n \n \n \n Data about VT ablation in patients with electrical storm (ES) is limited. This study sought to compare the prognostic outcome of patients undergoing VT ablation after electrical storm with and without a septal substrate on mortality, VT recurrence rates, rehospitalization rates and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).\n \n \n \n In this large single-centre study patients presenting with ES and undergoing VT ablation were included from June 2018 to April 2021. Patients with septal substrate were compared to patients without septal substrate. The primary prognostic outcome was cardiovascular mortality, secondary endpoints were VT recurrence rates, rehospitalization rates and MACE all after a median follow-up of 22 months.\n \n \n \n A total of 108 patients underwent a first VT ablation due to electrical storm and were included (65 ± 13 years; 86% male; 45% ischemic cardiomyopathy). Cardiovascular risk factors were equally distributed among both groups (all p>0.05). Major complications occurred in 11% of all patients with increased postinterventional third degree AV blocks among patients with septal substrate (9% vs 0%; p=0.062). Noninducibility of the clinical VT was achieved in 98% of all patients without a septal substrate and in 91% of all patients with a septal substrate (p=0.136). Noninducibility of any VT was achieved in 88% without a septal substrate and in 66% with a septal substrate (p=0.011). However, in non-invasive programmed stimulation before hospital discharge VT inducibility did not differ among both groups (p>0.05). After 1 year and a median of 22 months follow-up, patients with septal substrate died significantly more often due to cardiovascular causes (25% vs. 7%; log-rank p=0.021). In univariate analysis cardiovascular mortality for ES patients with septal substrate was 3.9 fold higher (HR 3.979; CI 95% 1.124 – 14.092; p=0.032). Independent predictors of adverse outcome in multivariable regression analysis were presence of septal substrate (HR 4.836; p=0.026) and increased numbers of VTs inducible during VT ablation (HR 1.635; p=0.007). VT recurrence during follow-up was 59% and equally distributed among both groups (log rank p=0.911). Rehospitalization rates (log rank p=0.532) and rates of MACE (log rank p=0.463) were equal.\n \n \n \n Presence of a septal substrate is associated with adverse long-term cardiovascular mortality in patients admitted for VT ablation after electrical storm. Despite decreased ablation success in these patients VT recurrence rates were not increased during follow-up.\n","PeriodicalId":11720,"journal":{"name":"EP Europace","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EP Europace","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euac053.366","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Type of funding sources: None. Data about VT ablation in patients with electrical storm (ES) is limited. This study sought to compare the prognostic outcome of patients undergoing VT ablation after electrical storm with and without a septal substrate on mortality, VT recurrence rates, rehospitalization rates and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). In this large single-centre study patients presenting with ES and undergoing VT ablation were included from June 2018 to April 2021. Patients with septal substrate were compared to patients without septal substrate. The primary prognostic outcome was cardiovascular mortality, secondary endpoints were VT recurrence rates, rehospitalization rates and MACE all after a median follow-up of 22 months. A total of 108 patients underwent a first VT ablation due to electrical storm and were included (65 ± 13 years; 86% male; 45% ischemic cardiomyopathy). Cardiovascular risk factors were equally distributed among both groups (all p>0.05). Major complications occurred in 11% of all patients with increased postinterventional third degree AV blocks among patients with septal substrate (9% vs 0%; p=0.062). Noninducibility of the clinical VT was achieved in 98% of all patients without a septal substrate and in 91% of all patients with a septal substrate (p=0.136). Noninducibility of any VT was achieved in 88% without a septal substrate and in 66% with a septal substrate (p=0.011). However, in non-invasive programmed stimulation before hospital discharge VT inducibility did not differ among both groups (p>0.05). After 1 year and a median of 22 months follow-up, patients with septal substrate died significantly more often due to cardiovascular causes (25% vs. 7%; log-rank p=0.021). In univariate analysis cardiovascular mortality for ES patients with septal substrate was 3.9 fold higher (HR 3.979; CI 95% 1.124 – 14.092; p=0.032). Independent predictors of adverse outcome in multivariable regression analysis were presence of septal substrate (HR 4.836; p=0.026) and increased numbers of VTs inducible during VT ablation (HR 1.635; p=0.007). VT recurrence during follow-up was 59% and equally distributed among both groups (log rank p=0.911). Rehospitalization rates (log rank p=0.532) and rates of MACE (log rank p=0.463) were equal. Presence of a septal substrate is associated with adverse long-term cardiovascular mortality in patients admitted for VT ablation after electrical storm. Despite decreased ablation success in these patients VT recurrence rates were not increased during follow-up.
有间隔底物和无间隔底物的电风暴VT消融患者的预后
资金来源类型:无。关于电风暴(ES)患者室速消融的数据有限。本研究旨在比较有和没有间隔底物的电风暴后行室速消融患者的预后结果,包括死亡率、室速复发率、再住院率和主要心脏不良事件(MACE)。在这项大型单中心研究中,2018年6月至2021年4月期间纳入了出现ES并接受VT消融的患者。将有间隔底物的患者与没有间隔底物的患者进行比较。主要预后指标为心血管死亡率,次要终点为房颤复发率、再住院率和MACE,均为中位随访22个月后。108例患者因电风暴首次行房室消融术,时间为(65±13年;男性86%;45%缺血性心肌病)。两组心血管危险因素分布均匀(p>0.05)。在有间隔底物的患者中,所有介入后三度房室传导阻滞增加的患者中有11%发生了主要并发症(9% vs 0%;p = 0.062)。98%没有间隔底物的患者和91%有间隔底物的患者实现了临床室速无诱导性(p=0.136)。没有间隔底物的患者达到88%,而有间隔底物的患者达到66% (p=0.011)。然而,在出院前无创程序性刺激下,两组间的VT诱导性无差异(p>0.05)。经过1年和中位22个月的随访,有间隔底物的患者死于心血管原因的几率明显更高(25% vs. 7%;log-rank p = 0.021)。单因素分析中,有间隔底物的ES患者心血管死亡率高出3.9倍(HR 3.979;Ci 95% 1.124 - 14.092;p = 0.032)。在多变量回归分析中,不良结果的独立预测因子是存在间隔底物(HR 4.836;p=0.026),室速消融诱导的室速数增加(HR 1.635;p = 0.007)。随访期间室速复发率为59%,两组间分布均匀(log rank p=0.911)。再住院率(log rank p=0.532)和MACE率(log rank p=0.463)相等。室间隔底物的存在与电风暴后室间隔消融患者不良的长期心血管死亡率相关。尽管这些患者的消融成功率降低,但随访期间室速复发率并未增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信