Divyang Patel1, Vic Hasselblad2, Kevin P Jackson1,2, Sean D Pokorney1,2, James P Daubert1,2, Sana M Al-Khatib3,4. 1. Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 2. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, PO Box 17969, Durham, NC, 27715, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. alkha001@dm.duke.edu. 4. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, PO Box 17969, Durham, NC, 27715, USA. alkha001@dm.duke.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with ischemic heart disease may have implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) implanted for primary or secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. Although ICD shocks can be life saving, in some patients, they have been associated with increased mortality and/or morbidity. Several studies have suggested that catheter ablation may be superior to non-ablative strategies at preventing ICD shocks delivered for ventricular arrhythmias; however, this is still controversial. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing catheter ablation with non-ablative strategies in treatment of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with ischemic heart disease and an ICD. The primary endpoints of interest were recurrent episodes of VT and death. We used a binary random effects method to calculate the cumulative odds ratios (OR) for recurrent VT and deaths. RESULTS: Of a total of 643 potential citations, our search yielded three citations that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. In the three trials, a total of 262 patients were randomized to ablation (n = 129) or non-ablative interventions (beta-blockers ± use of antiarrhythmics) (n = 133) group. The cumulative OR for recurrent VT was 0.471 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.176-1.257) for catheter ablation compared with non-ablative strategies, and for death, it was 0.766 (95% CI = 0.351-1.674). Excluding one study for being appreciably smaller than the other two, the OR for recurrent VT was 0.298 (95% CI = 0.164-0.543). CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, the rate of recurrent VT was lower with VT catheter ablation compared with non-ablative strategies. There was not a significant difference in rate of death among patients receiving catheter ablation versus non-ablative strategies for management of VT. Given the lack of adequately powered RCTs comparing ablation versus medical management of VT in patients with ischemic heart disease and an ICD, larger studies with longer follow-up are needed.
BACKGROUND:Patients with ischemic heart disease may have implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) implanted for primary or secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. Although ICD shocks can be life saving, in some patients, they have been associated with increased mortality and/or morbidity. Several studies have suggested that catheter ablation may be superior to non-ablative strategies at preventing ICD shocks delivered for ventricular arrhythmias; however, this is still controversial. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing catheter ablation with non-ablative strategies in treatment of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with ischemic heart disease and an ICD. The primary endpoints of interest were recurrent episodes of VT and death. We used a binary random effects method to calculate the cumulative odds ratios (OR) for recurrent VT and deaths. RESULTS: Of a total of 643 potential citations, our search yielded three citations that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. In the three trials, a total of 262 patients were randomized to ablation (n = 129) or non-ablative interventions (beta-blockers ± use of antiarrhythmics) (n = 133) group. The cumulative OR for recurrent VT was 0.471 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.176-1.257) for catheter ablation compared with non-ablative strategies, and for death, it was 0.766 (95% CI = 0.351-1.674). Excluding one study for being appreciably smaller than the other two, the OR for recurrent VT was 0.298 (95% CI = 0.164-0.543). CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, the rate of recurrent VT was lower with VT catheter ablation compared with non-ablative strategies. There was not a significant difference in rate of death among patients receiving catheter ablation versus non-ablative strategies for management of VT. Given the lack of adequately powered RCTs comparing ablation versus medical management of VT in patients with ischemic heart disease and an ICD, larger studies with longer follow-up are needed.
Authors: Etienne M Aliot; William G Stevenson; Jesus Ma Almendral-Garrote; Frank Bogun; C Hugh Calkins; Etienne Delacretaz; Paolo Della Bella; Gerhard Hindricks; Pierre Jaïs; Mark E Josephson; Josef Kautzner; G Neal Kay; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Bruce B Lerman; Francis Marchlinski; Vivek Reddy; Martin-Jan Schalij; Richard Schilling; Kyoko Soejima; David Wilber Journal: Europace Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Arthur J Moss; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Helmut Klein; David J Wilber; David S Cannom; James P Daubert; Steven L Higgins; Mary W Brown; Mark L Andrews Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Arthur J Moss; Henry Greenberg; Robert B Case; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Mary W Brown; James P Daubert; Scott McNitt; Mark L Andrews; Adam D Elkin Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-12-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Stuart J Connolly; Paul Dorian; Robin S Roberts; Michael Gent; Steven Bailin; Eric S Fain; Kevin Thorpe; Jean Champagne; Mario Talajic; Benoit Coutu; Gerian C Gronefeld; Stefan H Hohnloser Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-01-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hildegard Tanner; Gerhard Hindricks; Marius Volkmer; Steve Furniss; Volker Kühlkamp; Dominique Lacroix; Christian DE Chillou; Jesús Almendral; Domenico Caponi; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Hans Kottkamp Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2009-07-28
Authors: Alexandra M Hajduk; Jerry H Gurwitz; Grace Tabada; Frederick A Masoudi; David J Magid; Robert T Greenlee; Sue Hee Sung; Andrea E Cassidy-Bushrow; Taylor I Liu; Kristi Reynolds; David H Smith; Frances Fiocchi; Robert Goldberg; Thomas M Gill; Nigel Gupta; Pamela N Peterson; Claudio Schuger; Humberto Vidaillet; Stephen C Hammill; Heather Allore; Alan S Go Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-03-20 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Ahmadreza Karimianpour; Patrick Badertscher; Joshua Payne; Michael Field; Michael R Gold; Jeffrey R Winterfield Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: John M Baust; Anthony Robilotto; Peter Guerra; Kristi K Snyder; Robert G Van Buskirk; Marc Dubuc; John G Baust Journal: SAGE Open Med Date: 2018-05-04
Authors: Matthew F Yuyun; Aimé Bonny; G André Ng; Karen Sliwa; Andre Pascal Kengne; Ashley Chin; Ana Olga Mocumbi; Marcus Ngantcha; Olujimi A Ajijola; Gene Bukhman Journal: Glob Heart Date: 2020-05-08