Killu, Ammar M.

Background— Prior cardiac surgery, especially the presence of coronary artery bypass grafts, is thought to preclude percutaneous epicardial access (EpiAcc) and, therefore, mapping and ablation. We evaluated the feasibility and safety of EpiAcc in patients with a prior cardiac operation. Methods and Results— We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent EpiAcc for ablation for ventricular tachycardia or symptomatic premature ventricular complexes between 2004 and 2013 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Of 162 patients who underwent EpiAcc, 18 had prior cardiac surgery (median age, 64 years, all men). This included 10 coronary artery bypass grafts, 2 epicardial implantable cardioverter defibrillator placement, 5 valve surgery, 2 septal myectomy, 1 aortic arch replacement, 1 myocardial bridge unroofing, and 1 myocardial perforation repair (3 patients had multiple procedures). Access was successful in 12 of 18; the inferior approach was used in 78%. Successful access was achieved in 6 of 10 patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafts. Adhesiolysis was required in 10 patients with the sheath, access wire, and pigtail or ablation catheter. Intraprocedural coronary angiography was performed in 8 patients. A total of 45 ventricular tachycardias/premature ventricular complexes were ablated. Thirteen patients underwent endocardial-only ablation, 2 had epicardial-only ablation, whereas 3 had endocardial–epicardial ablation. Ablation was deemed successful in 13 of 18 patients. Four patients had bleeding complications (pericardial effusion, pericardial hematoma, hemoperitoneum, and pericardial tamponade). In patients with coronary grafts, there was no evidence of acute graft disruption. Conclusions— Percutaneous EpiAcc is feasible in patients with previous cardiac surgery, including coronary artery bypass grafts. However, adhesiolysis is frequently required. Although the risk of coronary graft injury is low, life-threatening complications may occur.

BackgroundThis case‐series highlights strategies used for successful epicardial access in challenging cases.Percutaneous epicardial access has become a valuable tool for mapping and ablating arrhythmias. However, this technique can be especially difficult in certain circumstances and is frequently avoided.MethodsAll cases of epicardial access for ablation from our institution were reviewed searching for exceptionally difficult cases in patients with complex pericardial and thoracic anatomy. The successful strategies are characterized in this report.ResultsAmong 144 patients who underwent an epicardial ablation procedure between January 2004 and June 2013, four required unconventional approaches for epicardial access for ventricular tachycardia ablation. Two patients (one with previous cardiac surgery and one with prior pericardial effusion) had substantial fibrous pericardial adhesions with no virtual pericardial space and required adhesiolysis. One patient, status postpartial colectomy, underwent computed tomography‐guided intercostal epicardial access due to the presence of bowel throughout the subdiaphragmatic space in the upper abdomen. The fourth patient had partial congenital absence of the pericardium and underwent epicardial access through the creation of a subxiphoid window. All epicardial accesses were successful and performed without major complication.ConclusionsWith precise procedural planning and cardiac imaging, percutaneous epicardial access is feasible even in patients with significant anatomical challenges.

Epicardial Access and ObesityIntroductionPercutaneous epicardial access for ablative therapies is an increasingly common technique utilized for refractory ventricular arrhythmias. There are, however few known data on obesity and complication rates associated with this procedure.Methods and ResultsWe retrospectively reviewed the charts of subjects undergoing epicardial access at Mayo Clinic between January 2004 and June 2013. Baseline clinical and echocardiographic data were collected for each subject, who was then classified into body mass index (BMI) categories as underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese based on a BMI of <18.5, 18.5–24.99, 25–29.99, and ≥30, respectively. Events and complications were recorded, and procedural and clinical success rates were determined.There was no statistically significant difference in access approach, procedural or clinical outcomes, or complications among the BMI categories. Note that 95.1%, 91.7%, and 93.1% derived procedural success among the normal weight, overweight, and obese categories, respectively (P value = 0.81). Similarly, there was no difference in clinical outcomes with success rates of 68.3%, 66.7%, and 75.9% between the respective groups (P value = 0.54). At 5 years, there was a trend toward increased mortality among obese individuals (28.8%) compared to normal weight (8.8%) and overweight (9.8%) patients (P value = 0.139).ConclusionPercutaneous epicardial access, mapping, and ablation can be performed in obese individuals with similar outcomes to those of lower weight category. Obesity should not preclude the use of percutaneous epicardial access when clinically indicated.

BackgroundOctogenarians (>80 years) have been underrepresented in clinical trials of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).ObjectiveTo determine the benefit of CRT with or without a defibrillator in older elderly patients.MethodsWe retrospectively studied consecutive patients who received CRT at our institution from 2002 through 2008. New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and echocardiographic parameters were assessed before and after CRT. Thirty‐day complications after device implant were collected. Survival data were obtained from the national death and location database. Data were compared between those 80 years and younger and those older than 80 years.ResultsOf 728 patients identified, 90 (12.4%) were older than 80 years. After CRT, older and younger patients had similar improvements in NHYA class (P = 0.41), ejection fraction (P = 0.48), and mitral valve regurgitation (MR) severity (P = 0.42). In the older patients, defibrillator implantation was associated with comparable improvement in NYHA class, ejection fraction, and MR grade severity (P > 0.05), as in those without a defibrillator. Overall survival was worse in octogenarians than in the younger patients by Kaplan‐Meier estimates (P = 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed similar survival between the younger and older subjects (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.83–1.84; P = 0.31). The observed complication rate in all study subjects was 12.2%, with no difference between the two age groups.ConclusionOctogenarian patients who received CRT with or without a defibrillator for advanced heart failure had similar clinical benefits as younger patients. CRT should not be withheld from octogenarians meeting current selection guidelines.