Outcome of rescue ablation in patients with refractory ventricular electrical storm requiring mechanical circulation support. (15th December 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chung, Fa‐Po; Liao, Ying‐Chieh; Lin, Yenn‐Jiang; Chang, Shih‐Lin; Lo, Li‐Wei; Hu, Yu‐Feng; Tuan, Ta‐Chuan; Chao, Tze‐Fan; Liao, Jo‐Nan; Lin, Chin‐Yu; Chang, Ting‐Yung; Vicera, Jennifer Jeanne B.; Chin, Chye‐Gen; Wu, Cheng‐I; Liu, Chih‐Min; Lee, Po‐Tseng; Huang, Ting‐Chun; Lugtu, Isaiah C.; Chen, Shih‐Ann
• Is Part Of: Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology. Volume 31:Number 1(2020)
• Page Start: 9
• Page End: 17
• Publication Date: 2019-12-15
• Subjects: electrical storm -- mechanical circulation support -- pumping failure -- rescue ablation -- structural heart disease; Blood vessels -- Physiology -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Physiology -- Periodicals; 612.1
• DOI: 10.1111/jce.14309
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1045-3873

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The management of refractory electrical storm (ES) requiring mechanical circulation support (MCS) remains a clinical challenge in structural heart disease (SHD). Objective: The study sought to explore the 30‐day and 1‐year outcome of rescue ablation for refractory ES requiring MCS in SHD. Methods: A total of 81 patients (mean age: 55.3 ± 18.9, 73 men [90.1%]) undergoing ablation were investigated, including 26 patients with ES requiring MCS (group 1) and 55 patients without (group 2). The 30‐day and 1‐year outcome, including mortality and recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VAs) receiving appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillators therapies, were assessed. Results: The patients in group 1 were characterized by older age, more ischemic cardiomyopathies, worse left ventricular ejection fraction, and more comorbidities. Thirty days after ablation, overall events were seen in 15 patients (mortality in 10 and recurrent VA in 7), including pumping failure‐related mortality in 6 (60%). During a 30‐day follow‐up, higher mortality was noted in group 1. After a 1‐year follow‐up, in spite of the higher mortality in group 1 ( P < .001), the overall events and VA recurrences were similar between these two groups ( P = .154 and P = .466, respectively). There was a significant reduction of VA burden in both groups and two patients had recurrent ES. Conclusion: Higher 30‐day mortality was observed in patients undergoing rescue ablation for refractory ES requiring MCS, and pumping failure was the major cause of periprocedural death. Rescue ablation successfully prevented VA recurrences and resulted in a comparable 1‐year prognosis between ES with and without MCS.