IMPORTANCE Autonomic neuromodulation provides therapeutic benefit in ventricular tachycardia (VT) storm. Transcutaneous magnetic stimulation (TcMS) can noninvasively and nondestructively modulate a patient's nervous system activity and may reduce VT burden in patients with VT storm. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety and efficacy of TcMS of the left stellate ganglion for patients with VT storm. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This double-blind, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial took place at a single tertiary referral center between August 2019 and July 2021. The study included 26 adult patients with 3 or more episodes of VT in 24 hours. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned to receive a single session of either TcMS that targeted the left stellate ganglion (n = 14) or sham stimulation (n = 12). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was freedom from VT in the 24-hour period following randomization. Key secondary outcomes included safety of TcMS on cardiac implantable electronic devices, as well as burden of VT in the 72-hour period following randomization.RESULTS Among 26 patients (mean [SD] age, 64 [13] years; 20 [77%] male), a mean (SD) of 12.7 (10.3) episodes of VT occurred within the 24 hours preceding randomization. Patients had recurrent VT despite taking a mean (SD) of 2.0 (0.6) antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), and 11 patients (42%) required mechanical hemodynamic support at the time of randomization. In the 24-hour period after randomization, VT recurred in 4 of 14 patients (29% [SD 47%]) in the TcMS group vs 7 of 12 patients (58% [SD 51%]) in the sham group (P = .20). In the 72-hour period after randomization, patients in the TcMS group had a mean (SD) of 4.5 (7.2) episodes of VT vs 10.7 (13.8) in the sham group (incidence rate ratio, 0.42; P < .001). Patients in the TcMS group were taking fewer AADs 24 hours after randomization compared with baseline (mean [SD], 0.9 [0.8] vs 1.8 [0.4]; P = .001), whereas there was no difference in the number of AADs taken for the sham group (mean [SD], 2.3 [0.8] vs 1.9 [0.5]; P = .20). None of the 7 patients in the TcMS group with a cardiac implantable electronic device had clinically significant effects on device function. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this randomized clinical trial, findings support the potential for TcMS to safely reduce the burden of VT in the setting of VT storm in patients with and without cardiac implantable electronic devices and inform the design of future trials to further investigate this novel treatment approach.

Ventricular tachycardia is a potentially fatal arrhythmia that occurs most frequently in patients with structural heart disease. Acute and long- term management can be complex, requiring an integrated approach with multiple therapeutic modalities including antiarrhythmic drugs, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and catheter ablation. Each of these options has a role in management of ventricular tachycardia and are generally used in combination. It is essential to be aware that each approach has potential deleterious consequences that must be balanced while establishing a treatment strategy. Catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia is performed with increasing frequency with rapidly evolving techniques. In this review, we discuss the acute and long-term management of ventricular tachycardia with a focus on techniques and evidence for catheter ablation.

No abstract

The left atrial appendage (LAA) may be involved in offloading atrial pressure during left ventricular systole. As ventricular rate increases, LAA emptying decreases during early diastole causing increased risk of thrombus formation particularly in patients with non-valvular AF (NVAF). The LAA is the site of thrombus formation in more than 90 % of patients with NVAF, so is an important target for thromboembolic prophylaxis in these patients. Anticoagulation therapy is used to treat NVAF, but it has long-term complications and may be contraindicated in some patients. Therefore, alternative strategies to reduce embolic risk in patients with AF have been developed. These include percutaneous, thoracoscopic, and open closure strategies. This study reviews the safety and efficacy of these strategies, comparing these approaches and devices with pharmacological strategies. There is little data to endorse one strategy over another. Given the minimal evidence available, recommendations in support of LAA occlusion remain weak and guidelines have called for more research and coding of endpoints for this emerging technology.

No abstract