Key result
Catheter ablation reduces major VT events and death ~25% compared to antiarrhythmic drugs.
Why the study?
Does catheter ablation reduce the composite of death or recurrent ventricular tachycardia events compared to antiarrhythmic drugs as a first-line therapy in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and clinically significant ventricular tachycardia?
RCT (n=416)
1:1
Yes
Does catheter ablation reduce the composite of death or recurrent ventricular tachycardia events compared to antiarrhythmic drugs as a first-line therapy in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and clinically significant ventricular tachycardia?
Hazard Ratio: 0.75 (95% CI 0.58–0.97)
Absolute Event Rate: 50.7% vs 60.6%
p-value: p=0.03
An initial strategy of catheter ablation is superior to antiarrhythmic drug therapy in reducing the composite of death or recurrent ventricular tachycardia events in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and clinically significant ventricular tachycardia.
Supports initial catheter ablation over antiarrhythmic drugs in ischemic cardiomyopathy with VT; extends randomized evidence for ablation-first approach.
BACKGROUND: Patients with ventricular tachycardia and ischemic cardiomyopathy are at high risk for adverse outcomes. Catheter ablation is commonly used when antiarrhythmic drugs do not suppress ventricular tachycardia. Whether catheter ablation is more effective than antiarrhythmic drugs as a first-line therapy in patients with ventricular tachycardia is uncertain. METHODS: In an international trial, we randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with previous myocardial infarction and clinically significant ventricular tachycardia (defined as ventricular tachycardia storm, receipt of appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator [ICD] shock or antitachycardia pacing, or sustained ventricular tachycardia terminated by emergency treatment) to receive antiarrhythmic drug therapy or to undergo catheter ablation. All the patients had an ICD. Catheter ablation was performed within 14 days after randomization; sotalol or amiodarone was administered as antiarrhythmic drug therapy according to prespecified criteria. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause during follow-up or, more than 14 days after randomization, ventricular tachycardia storm, appropriate ICD shock, or sustained ventricular tachycardia treated by medical intervention. RESULTS: A total of 416 patients were followed for a median of 4.3 years. A primary end-point event occurred in 103 of 203 patients (50.7%) assigned to catheter ablation and in 129 of 213 (60.6%) assigned to drug therapy (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.97; P = 0.03). Among patients in the catheter ablation group, adverse events within 30 days after the procedure included death in 2 patients (1.0%) and nonfatal adverse events in 23 patients (11.3%). Among the patients assigned to drug therapy, adverse events that were attributed to antiarrhythmic drug treatment included death from pulmonary toxic effects in 1 patient (0.5%) and nonfatal adverse events in 46 patients (21.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and ventricular tachycardia, an initial strategy of catheter ablation led to a lower risk of a composite primary end-point event than antiarrhythmic drug therapy. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; VANISH2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02830360.).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sapp et al. (2024) conducted an RCT in Ischemic cardiomyopathy and ventricular tachycardia (n=416). Catheter ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic drug therapy (sotalol or amiodarone) was evaluated on Composite of death from any cause during follow-up or, more than 14 days after randomization, ventricular tachycardia storm, appropriate ICD shock, or sustained ventricular tachycardia treated by medical intervention (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.97, p=0.03). Catheter ablation reduced the composite risk of death, VT storm, appropriate ICD shock, or treated sustained VT compared to antiarrhythmic drugs (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.58-0.97; P=0.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: