Key result
Prophylactic catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia may benefit certain patient groups, but current evidence is insufficient to advocate its routine use without further data from contemporary trials.
Why the study?
Does prophylactic catheter ablation improve outcomes in patients with ventricular tachycardia and cardiomyopathy?
Does prophylactic catheter ablation improve outcomes in patients with ventricular tachycardia and cardiomyopathy?
This review assesses the current evidence from major randomized controlled trials to determine if prophylactic catheter ablation should be advocated for patients with ventricular tachycardia.
Insufficient evidence precludes routine prophylactic VT ablation; contemporary RCTs needed to define benefiting subgroups.
Ventricular tachycardia (VT), often degenerating into ventricular fibrillation, is the leading cause of sudden cardiac death. Catheter ablation of VT is associated with relatively low, long-term success rates, while the optimal timing of ablation in patients with ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy remains unclear. Contemporary practice in most centres is to consider ablation late in the disease process following the failure of anti-arrhythmic medications and/or following recurrent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks. Three major randomised, controlled trials have been published investigating the role of prophylactic catheter ablation for VT. In the present review, we assess the evidence from these and other related trials in VT ablation to understand if there is sufficient evidence to advocate prophylactic catheter ablation in patients with VT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mukherjee et al. (2017) conducted a review in Ventricular tachycardia. Prophylactic catheter ablation vs. ICD alone or anti-arrhythmic medications was evaluated. Prophylactic catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia may benefit certain patient groups, but current evidence is insufficient to advocate its routine use without further data from contemporary trials.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: