This complaint is from a literature source.The following literature cite has been reviewed: elewa, ahmad g., et al.¿comparison between local abnormal ventricular activities (lava) elimination vs.Scar-dechanneling as two substrate-based approaches for ablation of scar-related ventricular tachycardia.¿ vol.Vol12, no.Issue05, 2021.No device was received for analysis at the time of submission of the initial 3500a.Since the product was not returned for analysis, no product failure analysis can be conducted, and no determination of possible contributing factors could be made.Device history record (dhr) review cannot be conducted because the lot number was provided by the customer.Manufacturer¿s reference number: (b)(4).
|
This complaint is from a literature source.The following literature cite has been reviewed: elewa, ahmad g., et al.¿comparison between local abnormal ventricular activities (lava) elimination vs.Scar-dechanneling as two substrate-based approaches for ablation of scar-related ventricular tachycardia.¿ vol.Vol12, no.Issue05, 2021.Objective/methods/study data: background: substrate-based approaches for ablation of scar-related ventricular tachycardia (vt) can help overcome the challenges of conventional mapping techniques particularly in vt storm patients.Objective: we aimed to compare the outcomes of scar dechanneling vs.Local abnormal ventricular activity (lava) elimination for ablation in our patient cohort who were predominantly presenting with vt storm.Methods and results: in our prospective observational study, we have enrolled 30 consecutive patients (mean age 58.13 years) with scar related vt (90% had vt storm).We used either the scar dechanneling (in 14 patients) or the lava elimination (in 16 patients) method.No significant difference was found between the two groups regarding the median procedure duration (192 vs 157 minutes in the lava and dechanneling groups respectively, p value 0.142), the median number of ablation points (74 points in each group, p value 0.93) or the acute procedural success rate (87.5% and 78.5% in the lava and dechanneling groups respectively, p value 0.642).At 12 months follow up, the overall recurrence rate was comparable in both groups (62.5% and 50% in the lava and dechanneling groups respectively, p value 0.491).Vt storm recurrence was 12.5% in the lava group compared to 35.5% in the dechanneling group (p value 0.404), a relatively good figure considering that at baseline 90% of patients had vt storm.Conclusion: lava elimination and scar dechanneling are two comparable methods regarding efficacy and safety in ablation of scar-related vt.Both have been associated with high acute success rates in vt storm patients.Lot, model and catalog number are not available, but the suspected biosense device possibly associated with reported adverse events: irrigated 3.5-mm tip ablation catheter thermocool, navistar.Other biosense webster concomitant devices that were also used in this study: a quadripolar biosense webster.Carto 3 system version 6.Non-biosense webster concomitant devices that were also used in this study: a quadripolar st.Jude medical.At.Jude ep lab system (workmate claris.Adverse event(s) and provided interventions: (2) patients developed vf requiring immediate defibrillation.(1) pulmonary edema.(1) heart block due to ablation near the his region.
|