Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dynamic functional substrate mapping of scar-related ventricular tachycardia offers better identification of ablation targets with limited ablation lesions. Several functional substrate mapping approaches have been proposed, including decrement-evoked potential (DEEP) mapping. The aim of our study was to compare the short- and long-term efficacy of a DEEP-guided versus a fixed-substrate-guided strategy for the ablation of scar-related ventricular tachycardia (VT). RESULTS: Forty consecutive patients presenting for ablation of scar-related VT were randomized to either DEEP-guided or substrate-guided ablation. Late potentials were tagged and ablated in the non-DEEP group, while those in the DEEP group were subjected to RV extrastimulation after a drive train. Only potentials showing significant delay were ablated. Patients were followed for a median duration of 12 months. Twenty patients were allocated to the DEEP group, while the other 20 were allocated to the non-DEEP group. Twelve patients (60%) in the DEEP group had ischemic cardiomyopathy versus 10 patients (50%) in the non-DEEP group (P-value 0.525). Intraoperatively, the median percentage of points with LPs was 19% in the DEEP group and 20.6% in the non-DEEP group. The procedural time was longer in the DEEP group, approaching but missing statistical significance (P-value 0.059). VT non-inducibility was successfully accomplished in 16 patients (80%) in the DEEP group versus 17 patients (85%) in the non-DEEP group (P value 0.597). After a median follow-up duration of 12 months, the VT recurrence rate was 65% in both groups (P value 0.311), with a dropout rate of 10% in the DEEP group. As for the secondary endpoints, all-cause mortality rates were 20% and 25% in the DEEP and non-DEEP groups, respectively (P-value 0.342). CONCLUSIONS: DEEP-assisted ablation of scar-related ventricular tachycardia is a feasible strategy with comparable short- and long-term outcomes to a fixed-substrate-based strategy with more specific ablation targets, albeit relatively longer but non-significant procedural times and higher procedural deaths. The imbalance between the study groups in terms of epicardial versus endocardial mapping, although non-significant, warrants the prudent interpretation of our results. Further large-scale randomized trials are recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, registration number: NCT05086510, registered on 28th September 2021, record https://classic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT05086510.