1. P=0.89 Patient at risk Noninducible:53 38 19 8 Inducible: 142 92 42 15
Supplemental Fig1 Kaplan–Meier analysis of long-term freedom from ablation of LPF-VT after the procedure. It shows the outcome of Group 1 (inducible ILVT) and Group2 (noninducible ILVT) in this subgroup.

2. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) 1SEC
Supplemental Fig2 Change in the ECG of index and redo ablation.(A)ECG of sinus rhythm(SR) preablation.(B)VT ECG of the first ablation.(C) ECG of SR after the first ablation. (D) ECG of SR before redo ablation.(E)VT ECG of redo ablation. (F) SR ECG after redo ablation.

3. (a) SR (b) VT1 (C) SR (d) VT2
Supplemental Fig3 ECG change of recurrent new-onset VT.(a)ECG of the sinus rhythm of index ablation.(B)T ECG of index ablation.(C)ECG with LPF block undergoing index ablation(c). VT recurrence(d) was verified as the upper septal VT by the repeat procedure.

4. (A) (B) (C) Purkinje potential
Supplemental Fig4 Radiofrequency catheter ablation of the recurrent left upper septal VT(LUS-VT).(A) The earliest Purkinje potential (PP) in ABLd during VT. (B, C) Location of the target of LUS-VT. Yellow markers denote the His-bundle recording site; gray markers denote theposterior fascicle and PP recording site; red marker denotes the target for radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation; white marker denotes the anterior fascicle. The other abbreviations are identical as earlier.

5. (. ) mean that it was statistical difference (P<0. 05)
(*) mean that it was statistical difference (P<0.05). LPF block: left posterior fascicular block. HR: Hazard ratio, 95% CI: 95% Confidence interval. Abbreviations as in Table1 and Table2.