Does catheter ablation as a first-line treatment prevent sudden cardiac death in patients with structural heart disease, preserved LVEF, and ventricular tachycardia?
Catheter ablation appears promising and safe as a first-line treatment for ventricular tachycardia in patients with structural heart disease and preserved LVEF, demonstrating high procedural success and low rates of sudden cardiac death.
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of catheter ablation as the first-line treatment of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with structural heart disease (SHD) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Patients with SHD are particularly susceptible to VT, a condition that increases the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) can terminate VT and prevent SCD but do not prevent VT recurrence. The efficacy and safety of CA as a first-line treatment in SHD patients with preserved LVEF remain unclear. We searched PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL for studies reporting the outcomes of CA therapy in patients with VT and preserved LVEF, published up to January 19, 2023. The primary outcome was the incidence of SCD following catheter ablation as the first-line treatment of VT in patients with SHD and preserved LVEF. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, VT recurrence, procedural complications, CA success rate, and ICD implantation after catheter ablation. We included seven studies in the meta-analysis, encompassing a total of 920 patients. The pooled success rate of catheter ablation was 84.6% (95% CI 67.2–93.6). Complications occurred in 6.4% (95% CI 4.0–9.9) of patients, and 13.9% (95% CI 10.1–18.8) required ICD implantation after ablation. VT recurrence was observed in 23.2% (95% CI 14.8–34.6) of patients, while the rate of sudden cardiac death (SCD) was 3.1% (95% CI 1.7–5.6). The overall prevalence of all-cause mortality in this population was 5% (95% CI 1.8–13). CA appears promising as a first-line VT treatment in patients with SHD and preserved LVEF, especially for monomorphic hemodynamically tolerated VT. However, due to the lack of direct comparisons with ICDs and anti-arrhythmic drugs, further research is needed to confirm these findings.
Askarinejad et al. (Fri,) untersuchten diese Frage.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: