Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Dec;68(8):893-913.
doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.13662. Epub 2024 May 2.

Radiation therapy for ventricular arrhythmias

Xingzhou Liulu  1 , Poornima Balaji  2   3 , Jeffrey Barber  4   5 , Kasun De Silva  2   3 , Tiarne Murray  4 , Andrew Hickey  4 , Timothy Campbell  2   3 , Jill Harris  4 , Harriet Gee  4   5 , Verity Ahern  4   5 , Saurabh Kumar  2   3   5 , Eric Hau  4   5   6   7 , Pierre C Qian  2   3   5
Affiliations
Review

Radiation therapy for ventricular arrhythmias

Xingzhou Liulu et al. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2024 Dec.

Abstract

Ventricular arrhythmias (VA) can be life-threatening arrhythmias that result in significant morbidity and mortality. Catheter ablation (CA) is an invasive treatment modality that can be effective in the treatment of VA where medications fail. Recurrence occurs commonly following CA due to an inability to deliver lesions of adequate depth to cauterise the electrical circuits that drive VA or reach areas of scar responsible for VA. Stereotactic body radiotherapy is a non-invasive treatment modality that allows volumetric delivery of energy to treat circuits that cannot be reached by CA. It overcomes the weaknesses of CA and has been successfully utilised in small clinical trials to treat refractory VA. This article summarises the current evidence for this novel treatment modality and the steps that will be required to bring it to the forefront of VA treatment.

Keywords: ablation; non‐invasive; radiosurgery; stereotactic body radiation therapy; ventricular arrhythmias.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Verity Ann Ahern is an Editorial Board member of JMIRO and a co‐author of this article. To minimise bias, they were excluded from all editorial decision‐making related to the acceptance of this article for publication.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Weaknesses of conventional radiofrequency ablation compared to strengths of stereotactic radiotherapy. (a) Double mechanical valve limiting catheter access into left ventricle. (b) Inability of RF ablation to achieve ablation through scar. (c) Cardiac tamponade as a rare life‐threatening complication from CA. Reprinted [adapted] from Divakara et al.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
SBRT treatment workflow. Reprinted [adapted] from Qian et al.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Future directions for the development of SBRT balancing the risks of adverse effects and efficacy.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Poole JE, Johnson GW, Hellkamp AS et al. Prognostic importance of defibrillator shocks in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 1009–1017. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Viles‐Gonzalez JF, Arora S, Deshmukh A et al. Outcomes of patients admitted with ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in the United States. Heart Rhythm 2019; 16: 358–366. - PubMed
    1. Wei C, Boeck M, Qian PC et al. Cost of cardiac stereotactic body radioablation therapy versus catheter ablation for treatment of ventricular tachycardia. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2022; 45: 1124–1131. - PubMed
    1. Robinson CG, Samson PP, Moore KMS et al. Phase I/II trial of electrophysiology‐guided noninvasive cardiac radioablation for ventricular tachycardia. Circulation 2019; 139: 313–321. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Antzelevitch C, Burashnikov A. Overview of basic mechanisms of cardiac arrhythmia. Card Electrophysiol Clin 2011; 3: 23–45. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms