Disclosures Medtronic: advisory board, review panel St Jude - - PDF document

disclosures
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Disclosures Medtronic: advisory board, review panel St Jude - - PDF document

8/29/2016 VT Ablation 2016: Indications and Expected Outcomes California Heart Rhythm Symposium 2016 Henry H. Hsia, MD, FACC, FHRS San Francisco VA Medical Center, University of California, San Francisco Disclosures Medtronic: advisory


slide-1
SLIDE 1

8/29/2016 1

VT Ablation 2016: Indications and Expected Outcomes

Henry H. Hsia, MD, FACC, FHRS San Francisco VA Medical Center, University of California, San Francisco

California Heart Rhythm Symposium 2016

Medtronic: advisory board, review panel St Jude Medical: speakers bureau Biosense-Webster: speakers bureau, fellowship support VytronUs: consultant

Disclosures

Trends in Catheter VT Ablation

N =81,539

Post-infarction VT

UCLA: 6/2004-7/2011

VT in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy

Sacher F. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2008;1;153 Nakahara S. JACC 2010;55:2355–2365 Palaniswamy C. Heart Rhythm 2014;11:2056

VT ablation: The proportion of NICM has increased from 27% (1999-2002) to 35% (2003-2006) (P=0.06) Post-infarct VT: catheter ablation increased from 2.8% (2002)  10.8% (2011); (p <0.001).

slide-2
SLIDE 2

8/29/2016 2

Anatomical Substrate Post-Myocardial Infarction

deBakker J. Circulation 1988; 77:589 deBakker J. Circulation 1993;88;915

Slow conduction in the infarcted tissue, with ‘zigzag' course of activation

Tung R. Circulation 2011;123:2284

RBRS VT: Entrainment with Concealed Fusion  Isthmus, #196 Sti-QRS=Egm-QRS 142 msec

I II III AVR AVL AVF V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 Hisd RV Hisp Abld Ablp

PPI=360 ms sti-QRS 142 ms VTCL=363 ms Egm-QRS 142ms Ent Isth Exit

RBRS VT

Inferolateral Scar

AoV

Outer Loop LP 180ms 255 198 190 170

Dysynchrony

  • n ICE
slide-3
SLIDE 3

8/29/2016 3

Ablation at Isthmus: RBRS VT Termination in 1.5 sec

I II III AVR AVL AVF V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 Hisd RV Hisp Abld Ablp Stim

0.5-1.6 mV 0.36-0.55 mV 0.21-0.31 mV

I II III AVR AVL AVF V1 Abld V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 Ablp His RVA

Late potentials with decremental local conduction delay

0.21-0.31 mV LP 171 ms LP 194 ms Decremental LP delay 0.5-1.6 mV I II III aVR aVL aVF V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 Perfect pacemap

Spontaneous LBB-RI VT Pacemap within the channel

LP 180 ms

slide-4
SLIDE 4

8/29/2016 4

P=0.007 Ablation Control P=0.045

Kaplan–Meier Estimate of Survival Free from ICD (Shock & ATP) Therapy Kaplan-Meier Estimates for Survival Free from VT or VF SMASH VT Trial VTACH Trial Thermocool VT Ablation Trial

N=231, VT (median, 11 in preceding 6 mo), primary end point of freedom from VT after 6 month f/u. VT episodes were reduced from a median of 11.5 to 0 (P<0.0001).

Stevenson WG. Circ 2008;118:2773-82 Kuck KH. Lancet 2010; 375: 31–40 Reddy VY. NEJM 2007;357:2657-65. Ablation Control

Catheter Ablation in Post-infarct VT

N Indications LVEF (%) Acute success Follow-up (months) Recurrent VT/ICD Rx Adverse events SMASH-VT (2007) 64

Recur/induc VT/VF

31±10

  • 24

13%* 4.6% ThermoCool (2008) 231

MMVT

25 49% 6 47% 7.3% VTACH (2010) 52

Stable VT

34±9.6

  • 21.9±8.3

53% 3.8% Euro-VT (2010) 63

Recur VT

30±13 81% 12±3 49% 5% Yokokawa (2012) 98

Recur VT ICD Rx

27±13 63% 35±23 34% 7.1% Silberbauer (2014) 155

Drug refractory VT

31±9.4

  • ~19

32% 7% Dinov (2014) 164

Recur VT

32±11 77.4% 27 43% 11.1%

VT Recurrences After the Ablation Procedure

Thermocool VT Ablation (2008)

Success (123) Failure (108) p Age 65 (58-70) 69 (62-73) 0.012 Heart failure 52% 73% 0.002 LVEF (%) 25 (20-35) 25 (15-35) 0.387 Multiple MI 5% 14% 0.016 VT events in prec 6 mo 10 (4-30) 14 (6-38) 0.37 # induced VT/pt 3 (2-4) 4 (3-6) 0.002 Longest VT CL 440 (370-500) 450 (380-538) 0.251 Shortest VT CL 330 (271-400) 305 (272-350) 0.029 Total # RF lesions 24 (11-32) 26 (16-39) 0.029 Postop VT Induction 30 58 <0.001

Yokokawa et al (2012)

No recurr VT (65) Recurrent VT (33) p LVEF (%) 29 ± 14 25 ± 12 0.26 Anterior MI 18 (28%) 14 (42%) 0.14 Scar area (cm3) 69 ± 30 93 ± 40 0.002 # clinical VT 4 ± 5 3 ± 3 0.29 Clinical VT CL 359 ± 73 350 ± 77 0.34 # induced VT 13 (20%) 9 (27%) 0.41 Identified critical sites 3 ± 2 4 ± 3 0.49 RF duration (min) 63 ± 44 73 ± 48 0.35 Postop VT- nonclinical 24/63 (38%) 11/32 (34%) 0.72 Postop VT- clinical 0/63 (0%) 0/63 (0%) 1.0

slide-5
SLIDE 5

8/29/2016 5

VT Recurrence Rate vs Ablation Strategies

Recurrence Rate During Follow-up 13.4 ± 4 months

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

All Patients (n=50) 9.5% 12.5% 75% 50% Complete LP abolition Incomplete LP abolition Persistent VT inducibility No VT inducible Percentage of Patients (%)

Silberbauer J et al. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol, 2014. 7(3):424-435

Freedom from Recurrent VT or Death

Jais P. Circulation 2012;125:2184

Local Abnormal Ventricular Activities (LAVA)

1 2 3 4 5

Komatsu Y. Heart Rhythm 2013;10:1630

Regional Variation of LAVA Latency Latency of LAVA is affected by locations. Only 3%

  • f septal LAVA were separated from far-field

ventricular egm

*

Ventricular Arrhythmia/ICD Therapy-Free Survival by the Ablation Approach In Post-infarct VT

p=0.006

VT non-inducible+LP abolition VT non-inducible, no LP abolition VT inducible

N=92, f/u of 25±10 months

Homogenization (Endo ± Epi): 19% Endo substrate ablation: 47% P<0.001

N= 160, f/u ~19 months

Silberbauer J. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2014;7:424 DiBiase L . JACC 2012;60:132

16%

slide-6
SLIDE 6

8/29/2016 6

Scar De-channeling

Berruezo A. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2015;8:326-336

16.4%

Recurrence after Catheter Ablation of Post-infarct VT

Santangeli et al, Indication for Ablation and Trials, Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation: A Practical Guide, 2014. CardioText

38% RRR

Limited substrate ablation Extensive substrate modification

Differences Between NICM and ICM Substrates

Nakahara S. JACC 2010;55:2355–2365

55±41 53±28 101±55 56±33

Endo Scar and Endo DS area : ICM >> NICM Endo and Epi LP: ICM >>NICM. LP-targeted ablation was more effective in ICM (82% non-recurrence at 12±10 mon f/u) vs NICM patients with less favorable outcomes (50% at 15±13 mon f/u).

4.1% 4.3% 1.3% 2.1%

slide-7
SLIDE 7

8/29/2016 7

Epicardial VT Ablation: A Multicenter Safety Study Characteristics of the Patient Population

Ischemic CMP (n=51) Dilated CMP (n=39) ARVC (n=14) No CMP (n=17) Other CMP (n=13) Total patients (n=134) Relative to a control population(n=722) 16% 35% 41% 6% 18% 19% Sex (Male %) 48 (94%) 32 (82%) 9 (64%) 10 (59%) 10 (77%) 109 (81%) Prior endocardial ablation 46 (90%) 33 (85%) 9 (64%) 15 (88%) 12 (92%) 115 (86%) Epicardial mapping and ablation 42 (82%) 36 (92%) 14 (100%) 12 (71%) 9 (69%) 113 (84%)

Sacher F. JACC 2010; 55: 2366

Endo Epi

Cano O. JACC 2009;54:799–808 Soejima K. JACC 2004; 43;10:1834

Scar area (cm2)

Wide/split/late egm: epicardial (49.7%) controls (2.3%).

Epicardial vs Endocardial Low Voltage Scar Distributions in Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy

LV endocardium: minimal scar LV epicardium: extensive scar

Endo-Epicardial Mapping in Patient with Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy

I II III AVR AVL AVF V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 RV Abld Ablp

Entrainment with concealed fusion: Isthmus MV MV

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8/29/2016 8

Scar Patterns and Ablation in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy

Basal anteroseptal scar (42%):

  • aortic root ± anteroseptal endo LV

(89%)

  • anterior cardiac vein (11%), with
  • RV septum (22%)
  • epicardium (11%)

Green: good pacemap Yellow: ECF White: VT termination

Inferolateral scar (47%):

  • epicardium (63%)
  • inferolateral endo LV (37%)

Piers, S. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2013;6:875

INFEROLATERAL GROUP

Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy: Anteroseptal vs Inferolateral Scar

Oloriz, T. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2014;7:414-423

Endocardial unipolar voltage:

  • Anteroseptal (AS): 44/87 (51%)
  • Inferolateral (IL): 43/87 (49%)
  • AS has more extensive endo

unipolar scar, freq involves an intramural septal substrate. Epi LPs: common in the IL (81%) vs AS (4%), p<0.001) and correlated with VT termination sites (p=0.014). VT recurred in 44 patients (51%) during a median f/u 1.5 years. AS scar was associated with higher VT recurrence (74% vs 25%, p<0.001) and redo procedure rates (59% vs 7%, p<0.001).

Outcome of Catheter Ablation in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy

N F/U (months) Approach Acute Noninducibility No Recurrence Marchlinski (2000) 8 10 Endo 1 (12%) 3 (38%) Hsia (2003) 19 22 Endo 8 (42%) 5 (26%) Soejima (2004) 22 11±9 Endo (22) ± Epi (7) 12/22 (55%) 6/6 (100%) 12/22 (55%) 4/6 (67%) Cano (2009) 22 18±7 Endo+Epi (22) 14/21 (67%) 12/17 (71%) 15/21 (71%) 12/14 (86%) Kuhne (2010) 24 18 Endo (24) ± Epi (7) 45/67 (67%) 67% if LP+ 7% if LP- Della Bella (2011) 67 17±18 Endo+Epi (57) Epi only (10) 45/67 (67%) 60.7% Tung (2013) 56 12 Endo only (35) Endo+Epi (29) 40% 45% 33% 36% Dinov (2014) 63 20 Endo only (43) Endo+Epi (20) 42 (66.7%) 23%

slide-9
SLIDE 9

8/29/2016 9

ICM

40.5% 43% 23% 57%

NICM

Outcomes in VT Ablation in Nonischemic vs Ischemic Cardiomyopathy

Heart Centre of Leipzig VT (HELP-VT) Study Kaplan–Meier Curves for VT–Free Survival

Dinov B. Circulation. 2014;129:728-736

N=227: 63 NIDCM vs 164 ICM

VT Ablation in Nonischemic vs Ischemic Cardiomyopathy

NICM (n=63) ICM (n=164) P value Epicardial abl, n(%) 19 (30.2) 2 (1.2) 0.0001 Noninducible PES, n(%) 9 (15.8) 14 (9.9) 0.360 Substrate mapping, n(%) 42 (66.7) 147 (89.6) <0.0001 VT induced, n/pt 2.1 ± 1.2 2.2 ± 1.3 0.744 VT mappable, n/pt 1.61 ± 0.80 1.96 ± 0.80 0.06 VT ablated, n/pt 1.40 ± 1.11 1.64 ± 1.15 0.168 Clinical VT CL (ms) 364 ± 86 385 ± 93 0.133 Procedure time (min) 181 ± 63.6 155 ± 49 0.003 Fluoroscopy time (min) 39 ± 22.4 26 ± 19 0.0001 Failure, n(%) 7 (11.1) 8 (4.9) 0.132

Dinov B. Circulation. 2014;129:728-736

Catheter VT Ablation in Nonischemic vs Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Predictors of Short-term Success

Age (yr) NICM 1.02 (0.96-1.08) 0.60 ICM 0.99 (0.95-1.04) 0.82 OR; 95% CI P ES NICM 1.98 (0.45-8.60) 0.37 ICM 0.96 (0.40-2.30) 0.922 EF% NICM 1.00 (0.94-1.07) 0.904 ICM 0.99 (0.95-1.03) 0.479 VTCL,ms NICM 1.00 (0.99-1.01) 0.47 ICM 1.00 (0.99-1.00)) 0.66 #VT NICM 0.46 (0.26-0.82) 0.008 induced ICM 0.61 (0.45-0.82)) 0.001 Epi Abl NICM 10.5 (2.52-44.0) 0.001

Incomplete success and failure Acute complete success

Dinov B. Circulation. 2014;129:728-736

slide-10
SLIDE 10

8/29/2016 10

Scar Progression in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy

Berte B. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, 2016; 27:80-87

7 ARVC and 13 NICM: inter- procedural delay 28±18 months Disease progression occurred in 75% of cohorts:

  • ventricular dilation in 45% [ARVC

71%; NICM 38%]

  • decreased EF in 60% [RVEF in

ARVC 71%; LVEF in NICM 54%]

  • scar progression in 50% [ARVC

57% and NICM 46%] Index VT recurrence was observed in 40%. Redo ablation sites were located in previously un-ablated regions inside the index scar in 70% of patients.

Relationship of Transplant-free Survival and VT Recurrence

In patients with EF <30% and across all NYHA classes, improved transplant-free survival in those without VT recurrence

[83% vs 59%, HR 8.35], P <0.001 [93% vs 89%, HR 3.19], P =0.002 [53% vs 1%, HR 6.75], P <0.001 [96% vs 84%, HR 9.29], P <0.001 Tung et al, Heart Rhythm2015;12:1997–2007

Guidelines, Recommendations for Catheter VT Ablation

2009 EHRA/HRS Expert Consensus on Catheter Ablation of VT-2009 2015 ESC Guidelines for Management of Ventricular Arrhythmias Structural Heart Disease Recommended

  • 1. Symptomatic VT despite AADs or when

AADs are not tolerated.

  • 2. Incessant VT or VT storm not due to a

transient or reversible cause.

  • 3. Frequent PVCs, NSVT associated with

ventricular dysfunction.

  • 4. Bundle branch/interfascicular VTs.
  • 5. Recurrent polymorphic VT and VF

refractory to AADs with suspected trigger

  • 1. In patients with scar-related heart

disease with incessant VT/storm

  • 2. In patients with ischemic heart disease

& recurrent ICD shocks due to VT

  • 3. In patients with bundle branch reentrant

VT

  • 4. As additional therapy or an alternative

to ICD in patients with CHD with recurrent VT or ICD therapies refractory to drug therapy. Should be considered

  • 1. Recurrent VT episodes despite therapy

with one or more Class I or III AADs

  • 2. VT due to prior MI, LVEF >30%, and is an

acceptable alternative to amiodarone.

  • 3. Hemodynamically stable VT due to prior

MI who have LVEF ≥35% even if they have not failed AADs.

  • 1. After first sust VT episode in patients

with ischemic heart disease and ICD

  • 2. May be considered in patients with DCM

and VA not caused by bundle branch reentry refractory to medical therapy.

  • 3. In patients with LV dysfunction

associated with freq PVCs, NSVT

slide-11
SLIDE 11

8/29/2016 11

Guidelines, Recommendations for Catheter VT Ablation

2009 EHRA/HRS Expert Consensus on Catheter Ablation of VT-2009 2015 ESC Guidelines for Management of Ventricular Arrhythmias Structural Heart Disease Should be considered

  • 4. May be considered in patients with

Brugada syndrome with electrical storms

  • r repeated ICD shocks.

Not recommended For asymptomatic infrequent PVC in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) and stable ventricular function.

Guidelines, Recommendations for Catheter VT Ablation

2009 EHRA/HRS Expert Consensus on Catheter Ablation of VT-2009 2015 ESC Guidelines for Management of Ventricular Arrhythmias No Structural Heart Disease Recommended

  • 1. Monomorphic VT that is causing severe

symptoms.

  • 2. Monomorphic VT when AADs are not

effective,

  • 1. In symptomatic patients with outflow

tract VT failed AAD or in those with a decline in LV function due to PVC burden.

  • 2. As first-line treatment in symptomatic

patients with idiopathic left VTs.

  • 3. PVCs triggering recurrent VF leading to

ICD interventions Should be considered

  • 1. In symptomatic patients with LVOT/

aortic cusp/epicardial VT/PVC after failure

  • f class IC agents or to avoid long-term

AAD therapy

  • 2. After failure/intolerance of class IC AAD

in symptomatic patients with papillary muscle tachycardia-under echo guidance

  • 3. In symptomatic patients with mitral and

tricuspid annular tachycardia.

  • 4. In patients with short-coupled torsade

de pointes for long-term suppression/ prevention of electrical storm/ICD shock

Substrate Modification or VT Induction as the First Step?

N=48 patients: 37 ischemic cardiomyopathy, 10 NICM, 1 ARVC were randomized to: Group 1, n=24: Substrate ablation with scar de-channeling first Group 2, n=24: Standard VT induction, mapping, ablation first followed by scar de- channeling Kaplan-Meier Curves for VT Recurrence P=0.557 Group 1 has shorter procedural parameters compared to Group 2:

  • procedure time (209±70 vs 262±63 min; P=0.009)
  • fluoroscopy time (14±6 vs 21±9 min; P=0.005)
  • electrical cardioversion (25% vs 54%; P=0.039)

Noninducibility of any VT was achieved in 87.5% and 70.8% of patients (P=0.155). VT induction and mapping before substrate ablation prolongs the procedure, radiation exposure, and the need for cardioversion without improving acute results and long-term outcomes.

Fernández-Armenta J. Heart Rhythm2016;13:1589–1595

followup of 22±14 months

slide-12
SLIDE 12

8/29/2016 12

Role of Early Prophylactic Catheter VT Ablation

N=98, 1/2008-4/2009, with VT and SHD:

  • 58% in VT storm and 67% on high dose

amiodarone. Early referral (N=36) Late referral (N=62): ≥ 2 episodes of VT, separated by >1 month In Kaplan–Meier analysis, the early referral group had superior 1-year VT free survival (P=0.01).

Early referral Late referral

Ischemic 63% Nonischemic 37%

Frankel DS. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, 2011; 22:1123. P=0.01 (1) <30 days (2) 30 days-12 months (3) >12 months Dinov B. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2014;7:1144 HR 2 vs 1=1.85; p=0.009 HR 3 vs 1=2.04; p=0.001

N=300 cath abl of sustained VT.

  • Group 1 (25%): <30 days after 1st VT
  • Group 2 (28%): 30 days-12 months
  • Group 1 (47%): >12 months

In Kaplan-Meier curves of VT-free survival, cath abl within 30 days after 1st VT event is associated with improved acute and long-term success.

Ischemic 68% Nonischemic 32%

Other Clinical Trials in VT Catheter Ablations

  • ASPIRE: Early Ablation Therapy for the Treatment of Ischemic Ventricular

Tachycardia in Patients With Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

– stopped enrollment

  • STRATUM-VT: Stepwise AppRoAch To sUbstrate Modification for Ventricular

Tachycardia

– stopped enrollment

  • STAR-VT: Substrate Targeted Ablation using the FlexAbility™ Ablation Catheter

System for the Reduction of Ventricular Tachycardia

– prophylactic scar-based VT ablation (both ischemic and non-ischemic) – stopped enrollment

  • VANISH: Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation or Escalated Drug Therapy

– significantly lower rate of the composite outcome of death, VT storm, or appropriate ICD shock in patients undergoing catheter ablation than those receiving an escalation in antiarrhythmic drug therapy

  • PARTITA: Does Timing of VT Ablation Affect Prognosis in Patients With an

Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator?

VT Ablation 2016: Indications and Expected Outcomes

  • Persistent inducibility is associated with VT recurrence and poor long-term results

in both NIDCM and ICM. A substrate-based, extensive ablation strategy is associated with improved outcomes.

  • Post-infarction VTs are often associated with a relatively “stable” substrate.

Catheter ablation for post-infarct VT is becoming more mainstream and not limited to a “last-resort” strategy.

  • NIDCM consists of a heterogeneous group of conditions with unknown factors

leading to modification of arrhythmia substrate over time. Disease/scar progression is the rule. However, incomplete ablation is the most common finding, strongly suggesting the need for more extensive ablation.

  • Successful VT ablation has been associated with an mortality benefit with an

improved transplant-free survival in those without VT recurrence

  • Early intervention and a “substrate ablation-first” approach may be preferable

compared to antiarrhythmic drug use and the standard VT induction protocol.

  • Evolving with expanded and specific indications for VT ablations that include (1)

PVCs induced LV dysfunction, (2) Brugada syndrome with electrical storms, (3) short-coupled torsade de pointes, (4) annular-LVOT-epicardial arrhythmias

slide-13
SLIDE 13

REFERENCES: Palaniswamy C, et al. Catheter ablation of post infarction ventricular tachycardia:Ten-year trends in utilization, in-hospital complications, and in-hospital mortality in the United States. Heart Rhythm, 2014. 11(11):2056–2063. Sacher F, et al. Ventricular tachycardia ablation: Evolution of patients and procedures over 8 years. Circ Arrhythmia Electrophysiol., 2008. 1:153-161. Nakahara S, et al. Characterization of the Arrhythmogenic Substrate in Ischemic and Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy: Implications for Catheter Ablation of Hemodynamically Unstable Ventricular

  • Tachycardia. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2010. 55(21):2355-2365.

de Bakker J, et al. Slow conduction in the infarcted human heart: "Zigzag" course of activation. Circulation, 1993. 88(3):915-926. Reddy V, et al. Prophylactic Catheter Ablation for the Prevention of Defibrillator Therapy. N Engl J Med,

  • 2007. 357:(26):2657-2665.

Kuck K, et al. Catheter ablation of stable ventricular tachycardia before defibrillator implantation in patients with coronary heart disease (VTACH): A multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2010. 375(9708):31–40. Stevenson W, et al. Irrigated Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation Guided by Electroanatomic Mapping for Recurrent Ventricular Tachycardia After Myocardial Infarction: The Multicenter Thermocool Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation Trial. Circulation, 2008. 118:2773-2782. Tanner H, et al. Catheter Ablation of Recurrent Scar-Related Ventricular Tachycardia Using Electroanatomical Mapping and Irrigated Ablation Technology: Results of the Prospective Multicenter Euro-VT-Study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, 2009. 21(1):47-53. Yokokawa M, et al. Reasons for recurrent ventricular tachycardia after catheter ablation of post- infarction ventricular tachycardia. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2013. 61(1):66–73. Silberbauer J, et al. Noninducibility and late potential abolition: A novel combined prognostic procedural end point for catheter ablation of postinfarction ventricular tachycardia. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol, 2014. 7(3):424-435. Dinov B, et al. Outcomes in catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia in dilated nonischemic cardiomyopathy compared with ischemic cardiomyopathy: Results from the Prospective Heart Centre of Leipzig VT (HELP-VT) Study. Circulation, 2014. 129(7):728-736. Jaïs P, et al. Elimination of Local Abnormal Ventricular Activities: A new end point for substrate modification in patients with scar-related ventricular tachycardia. Circulation, 2012. 125(18):2184-2196. Di Biase L, et al. Endo-epicardial homogenization of the scar versus limited substrate ablation for the treatment of electrical storms in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2012. 60(2):132–141.

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Berruezo A, et al. Scar de-channeling: New method for scar-related left ventricular tachycardia substrate

  • ablation. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol, 2015. 8(2):326-336.

Santangeli et al, Indication for Ablation and Trials, Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation: A Practical Guide,

  • 2014. CardioText

Sacher F, et al. Epicardial VT ablation: A multicenter safety study. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2010. 55(21):2366– 2372. Cano O, et al. Electroanatomic Substrate and Ablation Outcome for Suspected Epicardial Ventricular Tachycardia in Left Ventricular Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2009. 54(9):799–808. Piers S, et al. Contrast-enhanced MRI-derived scar patterns and associated ventricular tachycardias in nonischemic cardiomyopathy: Implications for the ablation strategy. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol, 2013. 6(5):875-883. Oloriz T, et al. Catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmia in non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy: Anteroseptal versus inferolateral scar sub-types. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol, 2014. 7(3):414-423. Dinov B, et al. Early referral for ablation of scar-related ventricular tachycardia is associated with improved acute and long-term outcomes: Results from the heart center of leipzig ventricular tachycardia

  • registry. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol, 2014. 7(6):1144-1151.

Berte B, et al. VT recurrence after ablation: Incomplete ablation or disease Progression? A multicentric European study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, 2016. 27(1):80-87. Tung R, et al. Freedom from recurrent ventricular tachycardia after catheter ablation is associated with improved survival in patients with structural heart disease: An International VT Ablation Center Collaborative Group study. Heart Rhythm, 2015. 12(9):1997-2007. Fernández-Armenta J, et al. Substrate modification or ventricular tachycardia induction, mapping, and ablation as the first step? A randomized study. Heart Rhythm, 2016. 13(8):1589-1595. EHRA/HRS Expert Consensus on Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Arrhythmias: Heart Rhythm, 2009. 6(6):886-933. ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: The Task Force for the Management of Patients with Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J, 2015. 36(41):2793-2867.