Kuldeep Shah1, Mohit Turagam2, Brijesh Patel1, Andrea Natale3, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy4,5, Jalaj Garg6,5. 1. Division of Cardiology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. 2. Helmsley Electrophysiology Center, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 3. Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute at St. David's Medical Center, Austin, TX. 4. Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Kansas City, KS. 5. D.L and J.G are co-senior authors. 6. Division of Cardiology, Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.
Abstract
AIMS: Catheter ablation is an effective strategy for drug-refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT) in ischemic cardiomyopathy. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes of prophylactic catheter ablation (PCA) of Ventricular Tachycardia (VT) in ischemic cardiomyopathy patients. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search through February 10, 2020, for all eligible randomized controlled trials that compared "PCA" versus "No PCA" for VT. Primary efficacy outcomes included - appropriate ICD therapy (composite of anti-tachycardia pacing and ICD shock), appropriate ICD shocks, electrical storm, cardiac mortality, and all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome was any adverse events. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials (N = 505) met inclusion criteria. Prophylactic catheter ablation was associated significant reduction in appropriate ICD therapies (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.55 - 0.89, p = 0.004), appropriate ICD shocks (RR 0.57 95% CI 0.40 - 0.80, p = 0.001) with a trend towards reduced risk of electrical storm (RR 0.64; CI 0.39 - 1.05; p = 0.075) compared to "No PCA". There was no significant difference in cardiac mortality (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.31 - 1.43, p = 0.29) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.52 - 1.82, p = 0.94) with similar adverse events (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.73 - 2.95, p = 0.29) between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic catheter ablation in ischemic cardiomyopathy patients was associated with a lower risk of ICD therapies, including ICD shocks and VT storm with no difference in cardiac and all-cause mortality.
AIMS: Catheter ablation is an effective strategy for drug-refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT) in ischemic cardiomyopathy. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes of prophylactic catheter ablation (PCA) of Ventricular Tachycardia (VT) in ischemic cardiomyopathy patients. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search through February 10, 2020, for all eligible randomized controlled trials that compared "PCA" versus "No PCA" for VT. Primary efficacy outcomes included - appropriate ICD therapy (composite of anti-tachycardia pacing and ICD shock), appropriate ICD shocks, electrical storm, cardiac mortality, and all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome was any adverse events. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials (N = 505) met inclusion criteria. Prophylactic catheter ablation was associated significant reduction in appropriate ICD therapies (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.55 - 0.89, p = 0.004), appropriate ICD shocks (RR 0.57 95% CI 0.40 - 0.80, p = 0.001) with a trend towards reduced risk of electrical storm (RR 0.64; CI 0.39 - 1.05; p = 0.075) compared to "No PCA". There was no significant difference in cardiac mortality (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.31 - 1.43, p = 0.29) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.52 - 1.82, p = 0.94) with similar adverse events (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.73 - 2.95, p = 0.29) between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic catheter ablation in ischemic cardiomyopathy patients was associated with a lower risk of ICD therapies, including ICD shocks and VT storm with no difference in cardiac and all-cause mortality.
Authors: Stephan Willems; Roland Richard Tilz; Daniel Steven; Stefan Kääb; Karl Wegscheider; László Gellér; Christian Meyer; Christian-Hendrik Heeger; Andreas Metzner; Moritz F Sinner; Michael Schlüter; Peter Nordbeck; Lars Eckardt; Harilaos Bogossian; Arian Sultan; Beate Wenzel; Karl-Heinz Kuck Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: K Soejima; M Suzuki; W H Maisel; C B Brunckhorst; E Delacretaz; L Blier; S Tung; H Khan; W G Stevenson Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-08-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Daniele Muser; Jackson J Liang; Rajeev K Pathak; Silvia Magnani; Simon A Castro; Tatsuya Hayashi; Fermin C Garcia; Gregory E Supple; Michael P Riley; David Lin; Sanjay Dixit; Erica S Zado; David S Frankel; David J Callans; Francis E Marchlinski; Pasquale Santangeli Journal: JACC Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2017-04-26
Authors: Jane Irvine; Paul Dorian; Brian Baker; Bernie J O'Brien; Robin Roberts; Michael Gent; David Newman; Stuart J Connolly Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Henry W Sesselberg; Arthur J Moss; Scott McNitt; Wojciech Zareba; James P Daubert; Mark L Andrews; W Jackson Hall; Benjamin McClinitic; David T Huang Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2007-07-17 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Vivek Y Reddy; Matthew R Reynolds; Petr Neuzil; Allison W Richardson; Milos Taborsky; Krit Jongnarangsin; Stepan Kralovec; Lucie Sediva; Jeremy N Ruskin; Mark E Josephson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-12-27 Impact factor: 91.245