Title |
Early Versus Late Referral for Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Tachycardia in Patients With Structural Heart Disease A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes
|
---|---|
Published in |
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology, February 2018
|
DOI | 10.1016/j.jacep.2017.12.008 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Jorge Romero, Luigi Di Biase, Juan Carlos Diaz, Renato Quispe, Xianfeng Du, David Briceno, Ricardo Avendano, Usha Tedrow, Roy M John, Gregory F Michaud, Andrea Natale, William G Stevenson, Saurabh Kumar |
Abstract |
This was a meta-analysis of published studies to examine the impact of early referral on outcomes after catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with structural heart disease. Patients are frequently referred for VT ablation after failure of antiarrhythmic drugs to control VT. Some studies have suggested that early referral might confer better outcomes. An electronic search was performed using major databases. The primary outcomes were long-term VT recurrence and total mortality. Secondary outcomes were acute procedural success and acute complications. Three studies were included with a total of 980 patients (mean age 64 ± 12 years, 71% males). Mean follow-up was 29 ± 27 months. Early referral for VT ablation was associated with decreased VT recurrence and acute complications compared with late referral (relative risk: 0.69 [95% confidence interval: 0.58 to 0.82], p < 0.0001 and relative risk: 0.50 [95% confidence interval: 0.27 to 0.93], p = 0.03, respectively). There was no significant difference between early and late referral for total mortality and acute success. Late referral for VT ablation was associated with worse outcomes (VT recurrence and acute complications) in patients with structural heart disease, which suggests that early referral for VT ablation might be a reasonable consideration in this patient population. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 23 | 51% |
Argentina | 2 | 4% |
Australia | 1 | 2% |
Spain | 1 | 2% |
Portugal | 1 | 2% |
Denmark | 1 | 2% |
Italy | 1 | 2% |
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 2% |
Mexico | 1 | 2% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 13 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 21 | 47% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 31% |
Scientists | 9 | 20% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
Researcher | 4 | 12% |
Librarian | 3 | 9% |
Other | 3 | 9% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
Other | 7 | 21% |
Unknown | 11 | 32% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 41% |
Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
Other | 2 | 6% |
Unknown | 14 | 41% |