Epicardial ablation of tachyarrhythmia in children: Experience at two academic centers. Issue 9 (26th August 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Upadhyay, Shailendra; Walsh, Edward P.; Cecchin, Frank; Triedman, John K.; Villafane, Juan; Saul, J. Philip
• Is Part Of: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology. Volume 40:Issue 9(2017)
• Page Start: 1017
• Page End: 1026
• Publication Date: 2017-08-26
• Subjects: catheter ablation -- ectopic atrial tachycardia -- epicardial ablation -- ventricular tachycardia -- WPW syndrome; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1111/pace.13152
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0147-8389

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Experience with percutaneous epicardial ablation of tachyarrhythmia in pediatrics is limited. This case series addresses the feasibility, safety, and complications of the procedure in children. Methods: A total of nine patients underwent 10 epicardial ablation procedures from 2002 to 2013 at two academic centers. Activation mapping was performed in all cases, and electroanatomic map was utilized in nine of the 10 procedures. Patients had undergone one to three failed endocardial catheter ablations in addition to medical management, and all had symptoms, a high‐risk accessory pathway (AP), aborted cardiac arrest with Wolff‐Parkinson‐White syndrome (WPW), or ventricular dysfunction. A standard epicardial approach was used for access in all cases, using a 7‐ or 8‐ Fr sheath. Epicardial ablation modality was radiofrequency (RF) in seven, cryoablation (CRYO) in one, and CRYO plus RF in one. Results: Median age was 14 (range 8–19) years. Indications: drug refractory ectopic atrial tachycardia (one), ventricular tachycardia (VT) (five), high‐risk AP (two), and aborted cardiac arrest from WPW – (one). Epicardial ablation was not performed in one case despite access due to an inability to maneuver the catheter around a former pericardial scar. VT foci included the right ventricular outflow tract septum, high posterior left ventricle (LV), LV outflow tract, postero‐basal LV, and scar from previous rhabdomyoma surgery. WPW foci were in the area of the posterior septum and coronary sinus in all three cases. Overall procedural success was 70% (7/10), with epicardial ablation success in five and endocardial ablation success after epicardial mapping in two. The VT focus was close to the left anterior descending coronary artery in one of the unsuccessful cases in which both RF and CRYO were used. There was one recurrence after a successful epicardial VT ablation, which was managed with a second successful epicardial procedure. There were no other recurrences at more than 1 year of follow‐up. Complications were minimal, with one case of inadvertent pleural access requiring no specific therapy. No pericarditis or effusion was seen in any of the patients who underwent epicardial ablation. Conclusion: Epicardial ablation in pediatric patients can be performed with low complications and acceptable success. It can be considered for a spectrum of tachycardia mechanisms after failed endocardial ablation attempts and suspected epicardial foci. Success and recurrence may be related to foci in proximity to the epicardial coronaries, pericardial scar, or a distant location from the closest epicardial location. Repeat procedures may be necessary.