Key result
Prophylactic mechanical circulatory support during VT ablation did not significantly reduce in-hospital/30-day mortality compared to no support (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.28-1.05; P=0.07).
Why the study?
Prophylactic temporary mechanical circulatory support is used to prevent acute hemodynamic decompensation during VT ablation, but supporting evidence remains lacking.
Does prophylactic temporary mechanical circulatory support reduce in-hospital/30-day mortality in adults undergoing ventricular tachycardia ablation?
Meta-Analysis (n=400)
Does prophylactic temporary mechanical circulatory support reduce in-hospital/30-day mortality in adults undergoing ventricular tachycardia ablation?
Odds Ratio: 0.55 (95% CI 0.28–1.05)
p-value: p=0.07
Prophylactic mechanical circulatory support during VT ablation allows for prolonged mapping and more induced VTs, and may improve long-term survival despite no significant difference in 30-day mortality.
Prophylactic MCS should not yet change VT ablation practice; leaves open long-term benefits and need for RCTs.
Acute hemodynamic decompensation (AHD) during ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation occurs in about 11% of cases. Prophylactic use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (pro-tMCS) has been applied to prevent AHD during VT ablation, but evidence supporting this practice is still lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the procedural characteristics and outcomes of pro-tMCS for VT ablation. PubMed/Medline was screened until February 2020. Articles including adults receiving pro-tMCS for VT ablation were included, and a meta-analysis to compare proMCS and no-tMCS was performed. Primary outcome was in-hospital/30-day mortality. Five observational studies presenting 400 procedures (pro-tMCS: n = 187; no-tMCS: n = 213) were included. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Impella and TandemHeart were used in 86.6% and 13.4% of cases, respectively. In the pro-tMCS group, more VTs were induced (mean difference: 0.52, confidence interval [CI]: 0.26-0.77, P < .0001), and patients remained in VT on average for 24.04 minutes longer (CI: 18.28-29.80, P < .00001). Procedural success was comparable between groups, as was VT recurrence. Pro-tMCS patients had an odds ratio of 0.55 (CI: 0.28-1.05, P = .07) for in-hospital/30-day mortality and 0.55 (CI: 0.32-0.94, P = .03) for mortality at follow-up. Sixty-four percent of no-tMCS patients received rescue tMCS. The most common tMCS-related complications were bleeding events. Pro-tMCS allowed for a prolonged time on VTs and the induction of more VTs. Although these advantages were not associated with differences in procedural success, VT recurrence, or in-hospital/30-day mortality in the overall population, pro-tMCS might improve long-term survival. Further prospective studies are urgently needed to confirm these results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mariani et al. (2021) conducted a meta-analysis in Ventricular tachycardia (n=400). Prophylactic temporary mechanical circulatory support (pro-tMCS) vs. No temporary mechanical circulatory support (no-tMCS) was evaluated on In-hospital/30-day mortality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.28-1.05, p=0.07). Prophylactic mechanical circulatory support during VT ablation did not significantly reduce in-hospital/30-day mortality compared to no support (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.28-1.05; P=0.07).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: