Evidence Hub

Simplified left cardiac sympathetic denervation as an acute strategy for recurrent ventricular tachycardia in multimorbid patients with structural heart disease: A case series

K. Krieger, In-Bum Park, T. Kemper, Christoph Lösel, Beate Schädlich, Raphael Spittler, Maren Kirchhöfer, C. Lohrenz et al.

Heart Rhythm O2, 2025

7 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Background Cardiac sympathetic denervation as a treatment for drug-refractory ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) involves video-assisted thoracoscopic removal of the stellate ganglion (SG) and thoracic ganglia. A simplified approach sparing the SG and targeting left T2–T4 ganglia (left cardiac sympathetic denervation [LCSD]) may offer a less invasive alternative. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of simplified SG-sparing LCSD as a bailout procedure for multimorbid patients with structural heart disease and recurrent VAs refractory to antiarrhythmic drugs and/or catheter ablation. Methods All patients undergoing SG-sparing LCSD at our institution between June 2023 and June 2024 were included in this single-center retrospective study. Baseline demographics, procedural complications, and arrhythmia outcomes were analyzed. Results LCSD was performed in 7 patients (mean age 75.9 ± 6.7 years, mean LVEF 30.7 ± 10.9%) with structural heart disease (nonischemic cardiomyopathy, n = 3; ischemic cardiomyopathy, n = 4) mostly 1 day (interquartile range 1–21) after admission with a procedure duration of 20.7 ± 5.3 minutes. Initially, 4 patients (57.1%) had electrical storm. Apart from 1 pleural effusion requiring drainage, no major complications or Horner’s syndrome occurred. During a follow-up of 7 ± 2.6 months, median VA episodes requiring implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy decreased from 14 to 2 (P = .021) and median implantable…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 7 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free