Local abnormal ventricular activity detection in scar‐related VT: Microelectrode versus conventional bipolar electrode

BACKGROUND: Conventional bipolar electrodes (CBE) may be suboptimal to detect local abnormal ventricular activities (LAVAs). Microelectrodes (ME) may improve the detection of LAVAs. This study sought to elucidate the detectability of LAVAs using ME compared with CBE in patients with scar-related ventricular tachycardia (VT). METHODS: We included consecutive patients with structural heart disease who underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation for scar-related VT using either of the following catheters equipped with ME: QDOTTM or IntellaTip MIFITM. Detection field of LAVA potentials were classified as three types: Type 1 (both CBE and ME detected LAVA), Type 2 (CBE did not detect LAVA while ME did), and Type 3 (CBE detected LAVA while ME did not). RESULTS: In 16 patients (68 ± 16 years; 14 males), 260 LAVAs electrograms (QDOT = 72; MIFI = 188) were analyzed. Type 1, type 2, and type 3 detections were 70.8% (QDOT, 69.4%; MIFI, 71.3%), 20.0% (QDOT, 23.6%; MIFI, 18.6%) and 9.2% (QDOT, 6.9%; MIFI, 10.1%), respectively. The LAVAs amplitudes detected by ME were higher than those detected by CBE in both catheters (QDOT: ME 0.79 ± 0.50 mV vs. CBE 0.41 ± 0.42 mV, p = .001; MIFI: ME 0.73 ± 0.64 mV vs. CBE 0.38 ± 0.36 mV, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: ME allow to identify 20% of LAVAs missed by CBE. ME showed higher amplitude LAVAs than CBE. However, 9.2% of LAVAs can still be missed by ME.