Ángel Arenal1, Pablo Ávila2, Javier Jiménez-Candil3, Luis Tercedor4, David Calvo5, Fernando Arribas6, Javier Fernández-Portales7, José Luis Merino8, Antonio Hernández-Madrid9, Francisco J Fernández-Avilés2, Antonio Berruezo10. 1. Cardiology Department, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain; Center for Biomedical Research in Cardiovascular Disease Network (CIBERCV). Electronic address: arenal@secardiologia.es. 2. Cardiology Department, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain; Center for Biomedical Research in Cardiovascular Disease Network (CIBERCV). 3. Center for Biomedical Research in Cardiovascular Disease Network (CIBERCV); Arrhythmia Unit, Cardiology Department, IBSAL-Hospital Universitario, Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain. 4. Arrhythmia Unit, Cardiology Department, Hospital General Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain. 5. Arrhythmia Unit, Cardiology Department, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Principado de Asturias (ISPA), Oviedo, Spain. 6. Cardiology Department, Hospital Doce de Octubre, Madrid, Spain. 7. Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Cáceres, Cáceres, Spain. 8. Hospital Universitario La Paz, IdiPAZ, Universidad Autónoma, Madrid, Spain. 9. Arrhythmia Unit, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain. 10. Arrhythmia Unit, Cardiology Department, Hospital Clinic and Teknon Medical Center, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) reduce ICD shocks, but the most effective approach remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: This trial compares the efficacy and safety of catheter ablation vs AAD as first-line therapy in ICD patients with symptomatic ventricular tachycardias (VTs). METHODS: The SURVIVE-VT (Substrate Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Symptomatic Ventricular Tachycardia) is a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial including patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and appropriated ICD shock. Patients were 1:1 randomized to complete endocardial substrate-based catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic therapy (amiodarone + beta-blockers, amiodarone alone, or sotalol ± beta-blockers). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, appropriate ICD shock, unplanned hospitalization for worsening heart failure, or severe treatment-related complications. RESULTS: In this trial, 144 patients (median age, 70 years; 96% male) were randomized to catheter ablation (71 patients) or AAD (73 patients). After 24 months, the primary outcome occurred in 28.2% of patients in the ablation group and 46.6% of those in the AAD group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30-0.90; P = 0.021). This difference was driven by a significant reduction in severe treatment-related complications (9.9% vs 28.8%, HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.13-0.71; P = 0.006). Eight patients were hospitalized for heart failure in the ablation group and 13 in the AAD group (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.23-1.35; P = 0.198). There was no difference in cardiac mortality (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.19-4.61; P = 0.929). CONCLUSIONS: In ICD patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and symptomatic VT, catheter ablation reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, appropriate ICD shock, hospitalization due to heart failure, or severe treatment-related complications compared to AAD. (Substrate Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Symptomatic Ventricular Tachycardia [SURVIVE-VT]: NCT03734562).
BACKGROUND: In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) reduce ICD shocks, but the most effective approach remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: This trial compares the efficacy and safety of catheter ablation vs AAD as first-line therapy in ICD patients with symptomatic ventricular tachycardias (VTs). METHODS: The SURVIVE-VT (Substrate Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Symptomatic Ventricular Tachycardia) is a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial including patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and appropriated ICD shock. Patients were 1:1 randomized to complete endocardial substrate-based catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic therapy (amiodarone + beta-blockers, amiodarone alone, or sotalol ± beta-blockers). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, appropriate ICD shock, unplanned hospitalization for worsening heart failure, or severe treatment-related complications. RESULTS: In this trial, 144 patients (median age, 70 years; 96% male) were randomized to catheter ablation (71 patients) or AAD (73 patients). After 24 months, the primary outcome occurred in 28.2% of patients in the ablation group and 46.6% of those in the AAD group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30-0.90; P = 0.021). This difference was driven by a significant reduction in severe treatment-related complications (9.9% vs 28.8%, HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.13-0.71; P = 0.006). Eight patients were hospitalized for heart failure in the ablation group and 13 in the AAD group (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.23-1.35; P = 0.198). There was no difference in cardiac mortality (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.19-4.61; P = 0.929). CONCLUSIONS: In ICD patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and symptomatic VT, catheter ablation reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, appropriate ICD shock, hospitalization due to heart failure, or severe treatment-related complications compared to AAD. (Substrate Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Symptomatic Ventricular Tachycardia [SURVIVE-VT]: NCT03734562).
Authors: Tobias Schupp; Michael Behnes; Mohammad Abumayyaleh; Kathrin Weidner; Jonas Rusnak; Kambis Mashayekhi; Thomas Bertsch; Ibrahim Akin Journal: J Cardiovasc Dev Dis Date: 2022-08-16