Killu, Ammar M

ABSTRACT Background Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is an emerging non‐thermal ablation modality with proven safety in atrial arrhythmia ablation. However, data on its performance for ventricular arrhythmias (VA) remain limited. Objective To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of PFA for complex VA in a multicenter real‐world US registry. Methods This retrospective study included consecutive patients undergoing PFA for ventricular tachycardia (VT) or premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) at three Mayo Clinic centers (April 2024 to July 2025). The primary feasibility outcome was the successful delivery of PFA lesions to the intended target substrate. Primary efficacy outcomes included acute procedural success; sustained VT recurrence requiring implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) shocks or multiple antitachycardia pacing therapies; and ≥ 80% reduction in PVC burden. Safety outcomes included procedural complications, valvular function, thromboembolic events, renal function, and conduction disturbances. Results Twenty‐six patients were included (13 PVC, 13 VT). Acute success was achieved in all VT ablations (69.2% complete; 30.8% partial) and in 92.3% of PVC ablations. Complications occurred in 11.5% of patients (transient LBBB [ n = 1] and vascular complications [ n = 2]). No thromboembolic events, intracardiac thrombus, or acute kidney injury were observed. Lesions near the mitral valve apparatus did not worsen mitral regurgitation, including in patients with pre‐existing valve disease. After a median follow‐up of 365 days, one patient experienced VT recurrence requiring ICD shocks. Estimated recurrence‐free survival after VT ablation was 61.5% at 12 months; 58.3% of PVC patients achieved ≥ 80% burden reduction. Conclusion PFA for VA appears feasible and acutely effective, with a low rate of procedure‐related complications. While acute success was high, long‐term outcomes were acceptable for VT ablation and relatively modest for PVC ablation, highlighting the need for continued refinement of technology and energy‐delivery strategies. Larger prospective studies are warranted.

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency (RF) ablation of premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) originating from the left ventricular summit may be unsuccessful, highlighting the need for alternative approaches. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a novel dual-modality focal catheter in treating left ventricular summit PVCs in patients who had failed previous RF ablation. METHODS: Patients were prospectively enrolled and underwent a redo ablation procedure using an irrigated, contact-force sensing, dual-modality focal catheter (TactiFlex Duo, Abbott) under compassionate use indication. The ablation strategy, including the choice of energy modality (monopolar pulsed field [PF], RF, or both), was left to the operator’s discretion. Safety assessments included serial biomarkers, renal function, and CMR within 36 hours. Efficacy was defined as ≥80% reduction in PVC burden with symptom resolution at 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Six consecutive patients (4 men; mean age, 53.8±15 years) with symptomatic left ventricular summit PVCs and a prior failed RF ablation (range, 1–2) were prospectively enrolled. All PVCs had an inferior axis, with a left bundle V1 morphology observed in 4 of 6 cases (mean burden, 30.1±5.3%). Acute suppression of PVCs was achieved in all cases. Acute suppression with a single PF application in the great cardiac vein-anterior interventricular vein occurred in 2 patients, while 3 patients required additional RF, PF, or combined RF+PF applications at adjacent sites. One patient with an inaccessible great cardiac vein-anterior interventricular vein was successfully treated in the left ventricular outflow tract with RF+PF application. Transient, reversible left anterior descending vasospasm was observed during PF delivery in 2 of 5 cases that underwent PF application adjacent to a coronary artery, despite pretreatment with intracoronary nitroglycerin without ECG or hemodynamic sequelae. All patients had durable suppression of PVCs at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In its first human application, dual-modality ablation was feasible and effective for refractory left ventricular summit PVCs. Transient coronary vasospasm occurred, though it was reversible and without acute clinical consequences.

Abstract Aims Catheter ablation is commonly performed in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) for management of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). The impact of catheter ablation on cardiac function is unknown. The aim is to assess the impact of catheter ablation for VAs on cardiac function in patients with ARVC. Methods and results This retrospective study included consecutive patients with ARVC who underwent catheter ablation for VAs. Cardiac and valvular functions were assessed on pre- and post-procedure cardiac imaging. The severities of tricuspid regurgitation, pulmonic regurgitation, right ventricular (RV) enlargement, and RV systolic dysfunction was graded as absent (=0), mild (=1), mild-moderate (=2), moderate (=3), moderate-severe (=4), or severe (=5). Thirty-four patients were included. Median age at the time of ablation was 49 [inter-quartile range (IQR), 23] years, and 10 (29%) patients were female. After a median follow-up of 1 (IQR, 0) day, 11 (34%) patients had worsening RV function, and 4 (12%) patients had worsening left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >5%. Five (15%) patients required inotropic support. After a median follow-up of 6.5 (IQR, 6.4) months, 20 (59%) patients had repeat transthoracic echocardiograms. Among patients with worsening RV function post-ablation, one-sixth (17%) had improvement in the RV function at follow-up. In contrast, among patients who had an acute drop in LVEF post-ablation, two-thirds (67%) had improvement at follow-up. Conclusion Right ventricular dysfunction following catheter ablation in patients with ARVC is common, affecting one-third of patients. Patients undergoing catheter ablation of VAs should be counselled on the potential negative impact of ablation on cardiac function.

ABSTRACT Background Mitral annular disjunction (MAD) carries an increased risk of complex ventricular arrhythmias, which can lead to sudden cardiac death. Many of these patients undergo implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation, but their ICD outcomes are not known. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of ICD implantation and the predictors of appropriate ICD therapies in patients with MAD. Methods The study included patients with MAD who underwent ICD implantation. Clinical, electrocardiographic, cardiac imaging, and device therapy data were collected. Results Forty‐nine patients with MAD and ICD were included. Median age was 49 (21) years, and 29 (59%) were female. 13 (27%) patients underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention and 36 (73%) patients for secondary prevention. Over a median follow‐up of 27.3 (35.3) months, 23 (47%) patients received ICD therapies. 18 (37%) patients had appropriate ICD therapies, and 5 (10%) patients had inappropriate ICD shocks. Median time to first appropriate therapy was 22.3 (63.3) months. In patients with a secondary prevention ICD indication, the rate of appropriate ICD therapies was 44%, while in patients with a primary prevention ICD indication, it was 15%. Among patients with appropriate ICD therapies, the first therapies were delivered for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) in 7 (39%) patients and polymorphic VT or ventricular fibrillation (VF) in 11 (61%) patients. Patients with appropriate ICD therapies were more likely to have a history of SCA ( p = 0.003) and/or low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ( p = 0.022) before ICD implantation as compared to patients without appropriate ICD therapies. Conclusions In our cohort of patients with MAD and ICD, appropriate ICD therapies were common. Most appropriate ICD therapies were delivered for polymorphic VT or VF. Larger studies are needed to elucidate the mechanisms of VAs and refine risk stratification in MAD.

ABSTRACTBackgroundThe factors contributing to sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) >30 days after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation are not well‐established.ObjectivesThis study aimed to predict the factors associated with late sustained VAs after LVAD implantation and develop a predictive score to identify patients with an increased risk of late sustained VAs after the procedure.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study on a training cohort of 623 patients and a validation cohort of 157 patients who underwent LVAD implantation at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Phoenix, and Jacksonville) from January 1, 2000, to December 30, 2020. Late sustained VAs were defined as ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) occurring >30 days after the LVAD procedure. Detailed chart reviews of the electronic health records within the Mayo Clinic and outside medical records were performed.ResultsA total of 780 patients were included in our study. Late sustained VAs occurred in 30% (n = 232) of the patients. The significant factors associated with late sustained VAs after LVAD were the history of VAs prior to LVAD (34.1% vs. 23.0%, p < 0.01), implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) (87.9% vs. 77.6%, p < 0.01) or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in situ (43.5% vs. 33.6%, p = 0.008), VT ablation prior to LVAD (5.2% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.010), use of amiodarone (49.1% vs. 38.7%, p = 0.007), use of mexiletine (15.5% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.01), and higher left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter (LVEDD) on echocardiography prior to LVAD implantation (71.4 vs. 68.7 mm, p = 0.002). During follow‐up, the patients who developed late sustained VAs after LVAD had lower survival than those who did not (HR = 1.96, 95% CI:156–2.4, p < 0.001). The average time from LVAD to orthotopic heart transplant was longer among late sustained VAs patients (23 vs. 14 months, p < 0.01). The “VIN” risk score was created to identify four risk groups: low (scores 0), intermediate (score 1), high (score 2), and very high (score 3). The rates of late VA's in the training cohort at 1 year were 9.5%, 14%, 18%, and 25% which was almost similar to the risk of late VA's at validation cohort 10%, 12%, 20%, and 63%, respectively.ConclusionsLate sustained VAs occurred in 30% of the patients who received LVAD and were associated with lower survival. The VIN risk score was developed and validated to stratify patients into low, intermediate, high, and very high risk of late sustained VAs.

AbstractIntroductionVentricular tachycardia storm or electrical storm (ES) is a common complication following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. The factors contributing to ES and outcomes are less studied. The study aimed to determine the factors associated with ES and the probability of survival in patients undergoing LVAD in three tertiary centers over a span of 15 years.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study on all patients who underwent LVAD implantation at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Phoenix, and Jacksonville) from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2020. ES was defined as ≥3 episodes of sustained ventricular tachycardia over a period of 24 h with no identifiable reversible cause. Detailed chart reviews of the electronic health records within the Mayo Clinic and outside medical records were performed.ResultsA total of 883 patients who underwent LVAD implantation were included in our study. ES occurred in 7% (n = 61) of patients with a median of 13 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 5–297 days) following surgery. We found 57% of patients (n = 35) developed ES within 30 days, while 43% (n = 26) patients developed ES at a median of 545 (IQR 152–1032) days after surgery. Following ES, 26% of patients died within 1 year. Patients with ES had a significant association with a history of ventricular arrhythmias and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks before the procedure. ES was significantly associated with reduced survival compared to patients without ES (hazards ratio [HR]: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.39–2.64, p < .001).ConclusionFollowing LVAD implantation, the rate of ES was 7% with majority of ES occurring within 30 days of LVAD. Risk factors for ES included pre‐implant history of ventricular arrhythmias and ICD shock. ES was significantly associated with reduced survival compared to patients without ES.

AbstractIntroductionData regarding ventricular tachycardia (VT) or premature ventricular complex (PVC) ablation in patients with aortic valve (AV) intervention (AVI) is limited. Catheter ablation (CA) can be challenging given perivalvular substrate in the setting of prosthetic valves. We sought to investigate the characteristics, safety, and outcomes of CA in patients with prior AVI and ventricular arrhythmias (VA).MethodsWe identified consecutive patients with prior AVI (replacement or repair) who underwent CA for VT or PVC between 2013 and 2018. We investigated the mechanism of arrhythmia, ablation approach, perioperative complications, and outcomes.ResultsWe included 34 patients (88% men, mean age 64 ± 10.4 years, left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction 35.2 ± 15.0%) with prior AVI who underwent CA (22 VT; 12 PVC). LV access was obtained through trans‐septal approach in all patients except one patient who had percutaneous transapical access. One patient had combined retrograde aortic and trans‐septal approach. Scar‐related reentry was the dominant mechanism of induced VTs. Two patients had bundle branch reentry VTs. In the VT group, substrate mapping demonstrated heterogeneous scar that involved the peri‐AV area in 95%. Despite that, the site of successful ablation included the periaortic region only in 6 (27%) patients. In the PVC group, signal abnormalities consistent with scar in the periaortic area were noted in 4 (33%) patients. In 8 (67%) patients, the successful site of ablation was unrelated to the periaortic area. No procedure‐related complications occurred. The survival and recurrence‐free survival rate at 1 year tended to be lower in VT group than in PVC group (p = .06 and p = .05, respectively) with a 1‐year recurrence‐free survival rate of 52.8% and 91.7%, respectively. No arrhythmia‐related death was documented on long‐term follow‐up.ConclusionCA of VAs can be performed safely and effectively in patients with prior AVI.

Background: Previous animal studies have shown no significant vascular injury from pulsed electrical field (PEF) ablation. We sought to assess the effect of PEF on swine coronary arteries. Methods: We performed intracoronary and epicardial (near the coronary artery) PEF ablations in swine pretreated with dual antiplatelet and antiarrhythmic therapy. Intracoronary PEF was delivered using MapiT catheters (Biotronik, Berlin), whereas epicardial PEF was delivered using EPT catheters (Boston Scientific, MA). PEF pulse duration was microseconds (Nanoknife 3.0, Angio Dynamics, NY) or nanoseconds (CellFX, Pulse Biosciences, CA). Results: We performed 39 intracoronary ablations in 10 swine and 20 epicardial-pericoronary ablations in 4 separate swine. Intracoronary PEF was delivered at higher energy compared with epicardial PEF (46 [interquartile range, IQR 20–85] J versus 10 [IQR 10–11] J, P < 0.01). Reversible coronary spasm occurred in 49% intracoronary ablations and 45% epicardial ablations ( P =0.80). At the end study, fixed coronary stenosis was demonstrated in 44% intracoronary ablations (80% for microsecond PEF and 18% for nanosecond PEF) and 0% epicardial ablations. Visible hemorrhagic and/or fibrotic myocardial lesions were observed at necropsy with similar frequency between intracoronary and epicardial PEF (45% versus 50%, P =0.70). Nanosecond PEF (49 ablations in 11 swine), when compared with microsecond PEF (10 intracoronary ablations in 3 swine), resulted in lower energy delivery (21 [IQR 10–46] J versus 129 [IQR 24–143] J, P =0.03) and less incidence of fixed coronary stenosis (18% versus 80%, P =0.04). Conclusions: In the swine model, intracoronary PEF resulted both in significant coronary spasm and fixed coronary stenosis. Epicardial PEF, delivered at lower energy, resulted in reversible spasm but no fixed coronary stenosis.

Background: Ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) is limited by the inability to create penetrating lesions to reach intramyocardial origins. Intramural needle ablation using in-catheter, heated saline-enhanced radio frequency (SERF) energy uses convective heating to increase heat transfer and produce deeper, controllable lesions at intramural targets. This first-in-human trial was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SERF needle ablation in patients with refractory VT. Methods: Thirty-two subjects from 6 centers underwent needle electrode ablation. Each had recurrent drug-refractory monomorphic VT after implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation and prior standard ablation. During the SERF study procedure, one or more VTs were induced and mapped. The SERF needle catheter was used to create intramural lesions at targeted VT site(s). Acute procedural success was defined as noninducibility of the clinical VT after the procedure. Patients underwent follow-up at 30 days, and 3 and 6 months, with implantable cardioverter defibrillator interrogation at follow-up to determine VT recurrence. Results: These refractory VT patients (91% male, 66±10 years, ejection fraction 35±11%; 56% ischemic, and 44% nonischemic) had a median of 45 device therapies (shock/antitachycardia pacing) for VT in the 3 to 6 months pre-SERF ablation. The study catheter was used to deliver an average of 10±5 lesions per case, with an average of 430±295 seconds of radiofrequency time, 122±65 minute of catheter use time, and a procedural duration of 4.3±1.3 hours. Acute procedural success was 97% for eliminating the clinical VT. At average follow-up of 5 months (n=32), device therapies were reduced by 89%. Complications included 2 periprocedural deaths: an embolic mesenteric infarct and cardiogenic shock, 2 mild strokes, and a pericardial effusion treated with pericardiocentesis (n=1). Conclusions: Intramural heated saline needle ablation showed complete acute and satisfactory mid-term control of difficult VTs failing 1 to 5 prior ablations and drug therapy. Further study is warranted to define safety and longer-term efficacy. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique Identifier: NCT03628534 and NCT02994446.