Key result
Catheter ablation cuts appropriate ICD shocks ~34% and VT recurrence versus AADs, without affecting mortality.
Why the study?
Catheter ablation has emerged as a potential first-line therapy for ventricular tachycardia, but whether it is superior to antiarrhythmic drug therapy regarding clinical outcomes remained to be systematically assessed.
Does catheter ablation reduce appropriate ICD shocks, recurrent VT, and all-cause mortality compared to antiarrhythmic drug therapy in patients with ventricular tachycardia?
Comparison
Catheter ablation vs antiarrhythmic drug therapy
Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs
Authors
Loading...
Supports preferring catheter ablation over antiarrhythmic drugs to reduce ICD shocks and VT recurrence; reinforces consensus from prior randomized trials.
Does catheter ablation reduce appropriate ICD shocks, recurrent VT, and all-cause mortality compared to antiarrhythmic drug therapy in patients with ventricular tachycardia?
Catheter ablation is superior to antiarrhythmic drug therapy for reducing VT recurrence and appropriate ICD shocks in patients with ventricular tachycardia, though it does not improve overall mortality.
Lucena et al. (2025) studied this question. Catheter ablation reduced appropriate ICD shocks by 34% (RR 0.66) and VT recurrence by 19% (RR 0.81) versus antiarrhythmic drugs, with no mortality difference.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: