Mohit K Turagam1, Venkat Vuddanda2, Scott Koerber3, Jalaj Garg1, Bharath Yarlagadda4, Tawseef Dar4, Arash Aryana5, Luigi Di Biase6, Andrea Natale7, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy8. 1. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 4. Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute & Research Foundation, Overland Park, KS, 66221, USA. 5. Mercy General Hospital and Dignity Health Heart and Vascular Institute, Sacramento, CA, USA. 6. Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA. 7. Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute, Austin, TX, USA. 8. Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute & Research Foundation, Overland Park, KS, 66221, USA. dlakkireddy@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of compelling data regarding the benefit of percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVAD) in patients undergoing ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation. The study aims to conduct a meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of PVAD versus no-PVAD (N-PVAD) during VT ablation. METHODS: Studies meeting criteria were systematically reviewed. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were extracted and analyzed. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects model to calculate risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: The meta-analysis included five retrospective, observational studies consisting of 2026 patients (PVAD group-284 patients versus N-PVAD group-1742 patients). The PVAD group was sicker with significantly higher VT storm, lower LVEF and greater proportion of NYHA class ≥ III than N-PVAD (p < 0.050). The acute procedural success [RR 0.95, 95% CI, (0.89-1.00), p = 0.070], VT recurrence [RR 0.94, 95% CI, (0.66-1.34), p = 0.740] and mortality [RR 1.28, 95% CI, (0.43-3.83), p = 0.660] were similar on follow-up between PVAD versus N-PVAD. PVAD group also had significantly higher complications [RR 1.83, 95% CI (1.21-2.76), p = 0.004] and longer fluoroscopy [MD + 7.31 min, 95% CI (0.91-13.71), p = 0.030] and procedure time [MD + 71.41 min, 95% CI (31.67-111.14), p < 0.001] than N-PVAD. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving PVAD support during VT ablation were sicker with no significant difference in acute procedural success, VT recurrence, and mortality compared with N-PVAD. PVAD support was also associated with higher complications and longer fluoroscopy and procedure time. A prospective randomized controlled trial will identify if using PVAD support in unstable patients undergoing VT ablation will impact clinical outcomes.
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of compelling data regarding the benefit of percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVAD) in patients undergoing ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation. The study aims to conduct a meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of PVAD versus no-PVAD (N-PVAD) during VT ablation. METHODS: Studies meeting criteria were systematically reviewed. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were extracted and analyzed. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects model to calculate risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: The meta-analysis included five retrospective, observational studies consisting of 2026 patients (PVAD group-284 patients versus N-PVAD group-1742 patients). The PVAD group was sicker with significantly higher VT storm, lower LVEF and greater proportion of NYHA class ≥ III than N-PVAD (p < 0.050). The acute procedural success [RR 0.95, 95% CI, (0.89-1.00), p = 0.070], VT recurrence [RR 0.94, 95% CI, (0.66-1.34), p = 0.740] and mortality [RR 1.28, 95% CI, (0.43-3.83), p = 0.660] were similar on follow-up between PVAD versus N-PVAD. PVAD group also had significantly higher complications [RR 1.83, 95% CI (1.21-2.76), p = 0.004] and longer fluoroscopy [MD + 7.31 min, 95% CI (0.91-13.71), p = 0.030] and procedure time [MD + 71.41 min, 95% CI (31.67-111.14), p < 0.001] than N-PVAD. CONCLUSION:Patients receiving PVAD support during VT ablation were sicker with no significant difference in acute procedural success, VT recurrence, and mortality compared with N-PVAD. PVAD support was also associated with higher complications and longer fluoroscopy and procedure time. A prospective randomized controlled trial will identify if using PVAD support in unstable patients undergoing VT ablation will impact clinical outcomes.
Authors: Bernhard Wernly; Clemens Seelmaier; David Leistner; Barbara E Stähli; Ingrid Pretsch; Michael Lichtenauer; Christian Jung; Uta C Hoppe; Ulf Landmesser; Holger Thiele; Alexander Lauten Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2019-03-21 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Piotr Sielatycki; Małgorzata Chlabicz; Robert Sawicki; Tomasz Hirnle; Bożena Sobkowicz; Karol A Kamiński; Sławomir Dobrzycki Journal: Am J Case Rep Date: 2022-06-14