对于接受瘢痕相关室性心动过速消融术的高危患者(PAINESD > 17)来说,术后急性诱导性是预测临床结果的不良指标。

IF 7.9 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Europace Pub Date : 2024-07-02 DOI:10.1093/europace/euae185
Joseph Sipko, Bryan Baranowski, Mandeep Bhargava, Thomas D Callahan, Thomas J Dresing, Koji Higuchi, Ayman A Hussein, Mohamed Kanj, Justin Lee, David O Martin, Shady Nakhla, John J Rickard, Walid I Saliba, Tyler Taigen, Oussama M Wazni, Pasquale Santangeli, Jakub Sroubek
{"title":"对于接受瘢痕相关室性心动过速消融术的高危患者(PAINESD > 17)来说,术后急性诱导性是预测临床结果的不良指标。","authors":"Joseph Sipko, Bryan Baranowski, Mandeep Bhargava, Thomas D Callahan, Thomas J Dresing, Koji Higuchi, Ayman A Hussein, Mohamed Kanj, Justin Lee, David O Martin, Shady Nakhla, John J Rickard, Walid I Saliba, Tyler Taigen, Oussama M Wazni, Pasquale Santangeli, Jakub Sroubek","doi":"10.1093/europace/euae185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Ventricular tachycardia (VT) non-inducibility in response to programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) is a widely used procedural endpoint for VT ablation despite inconclusive evidence with respect to clinical outcomes in high-risk patients. The aim is to determine the utility of acute post-ablation VT inducibility as a predictor of VT recurrence, mortality, or mortality equivalent in high-risk patients.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>We conducted a retrospective analysis of high-risk patients (defined as PAINESD > 17) who underwent scar-related VT ablation at our institution between July 2010 and July 2022. Patients' response to PVS (post-procedure) was categorized into three groups: Group A, no clinical VT or VT with cycle length > 240 ms inducible; Group B, only non-clinical VT with cycle length > 240 ms induced; and Group C, all other outcomes (including cases where no PVS was performed). The combined primary endpoint included death, durable left ventricular assist device placement, and cardiac transplant (Cox analysis). Ventricular tachycardia recurrence was considered a secondary endpoint (competing risk analysis). Of the 1677 VT ablation cases, 123 cases met the inclusion criteria for analysis. During a 19-month median follow-up time (interquartile range 4-43 months), 82 (66.7%) patients experienced the composite primary endpoint. There was no difference between Groups A and C with respect to the primary [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.21 (0.94-1.57), P = 0.145] or secondary [HR = 1.18 (0.91-1.54), P = 0.210] outcomes. These findings persisted after multivariate adjustments. The size of Group B (n = 13) did not permit meaningful statistical analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of post-ablation PVS do not significantly correlate with long-term outcomes in high-risk (PAINESD > 17) VT ablation patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":11981,"journal":{"name":"Europace","volume":"26 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11259852/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Acute post-procedural inducibility is a poor predictor of clinical outcomes in high-risk patients (PAINESD > 17) undergoing scar-related ventricular tachycardia ablation.\",\"authors\":\"Joseph Sipko, Bryan Baranowski, Mandeep Bhargava, Thomas D Callahan, Thomas J Dresing, Koji Higuchi, Ayman A Hussein, Mohamed Kanj, Justin Lee, David O Martin, Shady Nakhla, John J Rickard, Walid I Saliba, Tyler Taigen, Oussama M Wazni, Pasquale Santangeli, Jakub Sroubek\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/europace/euae185\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Ventricular tachycardia (VT) non-inducibility in response to programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) is a widely used procedural endpoint for VT ablation despite inconclusive evidence with respect to clinical outcomes in high-risk patients. The aim is to determine the utility of acute post-ablation VT inducibility as a predictor of VT recurrence, mortality, or mortality equivalent in high-risk patients.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>We conducted a retrospective analysis of high-risk patients (defined as PAINESD > 17) who underwent scar-related VT ablation at our institution between July 2010 and July 2022. Patients' response to PVS (post-procedure) was categorized into three groups: Group A, no clinical VT or VT with cycle length > 240 ms inducible; Group B, only non-clinical VT with cycle length > 240 ms induced; and Group C, all other outcomes (including cases where no PVS was performed). The combined primary endpoint included death, durable left ventricular assist device placement, and cardiac transplant (Cox analysis). Ventricular tachycardia recurrence was considered a secondary endpoint (competing risk analysis). Of the 1677 VT ablation cases, 123 cases met the inclusion criteria for analysis. During a 19-month median follow-up time (interquartile range 4-43 months), 82 (66.7%) patients experienced the composite primary endpoint. There was no difference between Groups A and C with respect to the primary [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.21 (0.94-1.57), P = 0.145] or secondary [HR = 1.18 (0.91-1.54), P = 0.210] outcomes. These findings persisted after multivariate adjustments. The size of Group B (n = 13) did not permit meaningful statistical analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of post-ablation PVS do not significantly correlate with long-term outcomes in high-risk (PAINESD > 17) VT ablation patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11981,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Europace\",\"volume\":\"26 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11259852/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Europace\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euae185\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Europace","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euae185","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:室性心动过速(VT)对程序性心室刺激(PVS)的非诱导性是 VT 消融术广泛使用的程序终点,尽管在高危患者的临床结果方面尚无定论。我们的目的是确定消融后急性 VT 诱导性作为预测高危患者 VT 复发、死亡率或死亡率等效指标的效用:我们对 2010 年 7 月至 2022 年 7 月期间在本院接受瘢痕相关 VT 消融术的高危患者(定义为 PAINESD > 17)进行了回顾性分析。患者对 PVS 的反应(术后)分为三组:A 组,无临床 VT 或周期长度 > 240 ms 的 VT 可诱导;B 组,仅周期长度 > 240 ms 的非临床 VT 可诱导;C 组,所有其他结果(包括未进行 PVS 的病例)。合并的主要终点包括死亡、持久性左心室辅助装置置入和心脏移植(Cox 分析)。室性心动过速复发被视为次要终点(竞争风险分析)。在 1677 例室性心动过速消融病例中,有 123 例符合纳入分析的标准。在 19 个月的中位随访时间(四分位间范围为 4-43 个月)中,82 例(66.7%)患者经历了复合主要终点。在主要[危险比 (HR) = 1.21 (0.94-1.57),P = 0.145]或次要[HR = 1.18 (0.91-1.54),P = 0.210]结果方面,A 组和 C 组之间没有差异。经多变量调整后,这些结果依然存在。B 组(n = 13)的规模不允许进行有意义的统计分析:结论:消融术后 PVS 结果与高风险(PAINESD > 17)VT 消融患者的长期预后无明显相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Acute post-procedural inducibility is a poor predictor of clinical outcomes in high-risk patients (PAINESD > 17) undergoing scar-related ventricular tachycardia ablation.

Aims: Ventricular tachycardia (VT) non-inducibility in response to programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) is a widely used procedural endpoint for VT ablation despite inconclusive evidence with respect to clinical outcomes in high-risk patients. The aim is to determine the utility of acute post-ablation VT inducibility as a predictor of VT recurrence, mortality, or mortality equivalent in high-risk patients.

Methods and results: We conducted a retrospective analysis of high-risk patients (defined as PAINESD > 17) who underwent scar-related VT ablation at our institution between July 2010 and July 2022. Patients' response to PVS (post-procedure) was categorized into three groups: Group A, no clinical VT or VT with cycle length > 240 ms inducible; Group B, only non-clinical VT with cycle length > 240 ms induced; and Group C, all other outcomes (including cases where no PVS was performed). The combined primary endpoint included death, durable left ventricular assist device placement, and cardiac transplant (Cox analysis). Ventricular tachycardia recurrence was considered a secondary endpoint (competing risk analysis). Of the 1677 VT ablation cases, 123 cases met the inclusion criteria for analysis. During a 19-month median follow-up time (interquartile range 4-43 months), 82 (66.7%) patients experienced the composite primary endpoint. There was no difference between Groups A and C with respect to the primary [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.21 (0.94-1.57), P = 0.145] or secondary [HR = 1.18 (0.91-1.54), P = 0.210] outcomes. These findings persisted after multivariate adjustments. The size of Group B (n = 13) did not permit meaningful statistical analysis.

Conclusion: The results of post-ablation PVS do not significantly correlate with long-term outcomes in high-risk (PAINESD > 17) VT ablation patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Europace
Europace 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
8.20%
发文量
851
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: EP - Europace - European Journal of Pacing, Arrhythmias and Cardiac Electrophysiology of the European Heart Rhythm Association of the European Society of Cardiology. The journal aims to provide an avenue of communication of top quality European and international original scientific work and reviews in the fields of Arrhythmias, Pacing and Cellular Electrophysiology. The Journal offers the reader a collection of contemporary original peer-reviewed papers, invited papers and editorial comments together with book reviews and correspondence.
×
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