↓ Skip to main content

Prophylactic catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia in ischemic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Prophylactic catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia in ischemic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10840-018-0376-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Varunsiri Atti, Venkat Vuddanda, Mohit K. Turagam, Praveen Vemula, Zubair Shah, Himakar Nagam, Srikanth Yandrapalli, Mohammad-Ali Jazayeri, Scott Koerber, Juan Viles Gonzalez, Andrea Natale, Luigi Di Biase, Dhanunjaya R. Lakkireddy

Abstract

Catheter ablation is proven to be an effective strategy for drug refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT) in ischemic cardiomyopathy. However, the appropriate timing of VT ablation and identifying the group of patients that may receive the greatest benefit remains uncertain. There is limited data on the effect on prophylactic catheter ablation (PCA) in the prevention of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy, electrical storm, and mortality. We performed a comprehensive literature search through November 1, 2017, for all eligible studies comparing PCA + ICD versus ICD only in eligible patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Clinical outcomes included all ICD therapies including ICD shocks and electrical storm. Additional outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and complications. Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (N = 346) met inclusion criteria. PCA was associated with a significantly lower ICD therapies (OR 0.49; CI 0.28 to 0.87; p = 0.01) including ICD shocks [OR 0.38; CI 0.22 to 0.64; p = 0.0003) and electrical storm (OR 0.55; CI 0.30 to 1.01; p = 0.05) when compared with ICD only. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (OR 0.77; CI 0.41 to 1.46; p = 0.42), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.49; CI 0.16 to 1.50; p = 0.21), and major adverse events (OR 1.45; CI 0.52 to 4.01; p = 0.47) between two groups. These results suggest prophylactic catheter ablation decreases ICD therapies, including shocks and electrical storm with no improvement in overall mortality. There is a need for future carefully designed randomized clinical trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Professor 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 11 26%
Unknown 15 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 18 42%