Key result
Positive EPS fails to predict mortality or heart transplantation risk in congenital heart disease.
Why the study?
Risk stratification for ventricular arrhythmia in congenital heart disease remains challenging, and the role of programmed ventricular stimulation is incompletely defined.
Does a positive electrophysiology study (inducibility) predict increased risk of mortality, heart transplantation, or ventricular arrhythmias in patients with structural congenital heart disease?
Cohort (n=174)
No
Does a positive electrophysiology study (inducibility) predict increased risk of mortality, heart transplantation, or ventricular arrhythmias in patients with structural congenital heart disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 24.3% vs 18.2%
p-value: p=0.924
In patients with congenital heart disease, a positive electrophysiology study identifies a distinct clinical phenotype but does not significantly predict worse long-term mortality or ventricular arrhythmia outcomes compared to a negative study.
Positive electrophysiology study does not identify higher mortality or transplantation risk in congenital heart disease; leaves open its prognostic utility for ventricular arrhythmias.
Background Risk stratification for ventricular arrhythmia in congenital heart disease (CHD) remains challenging, and the role of programmed ventricular stimulation is incompletely defined. Objective This study evaluated long-term outcomes after electrophysiology study (EPS) for ventricular arrhythmia assessment in CHD practice. Methods Retrospective, single-center cohort study including consecutive patients with structural CHD who underwent EPS with programmed ventricular stimulation for ventricular arrhythmia evaluation between 1995 and 2022. Baseline characteristics were compared between inducible (EPS+) and non-inducible (EPS-) patients. The primary outcomes were a composite of all-cause mortality and heart transplantation (HTX) and a composite ventricular arrhythmia (VA) outcome. Results Among 174 patients, median age at EPS was 33.8 years (IQR 24.1-46.1), 65 (37.4%) were female, 106 (60.9%) had conotruncal CHD, and 37 (21.3%) were EPS+. EPS+ patients more often had conotruncal CHD, abnormal RVEF, and longer PR and QRS duration. During a median follow-up of 13.0 (8.1-19.4) years, there was no significant difference in mortality/HTX (EPS+ 24.3% vs EPS- 18.2%, log-rank p=0.924) or VA outcome (EPS+ 27.0% vs 12.4%, log-rank p=0.113) between EPS+ and EPS- patients. After a median time of 2.8 (0.3-4.5) years 28 EPS- patients (20.4%) received an ICD. Of these, 16 (57.1%) received the ICD for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or sustained ventricular tachycardia. Conclusions In patients with CHD referred for EPS for ventricular arrhythmia evaluation, a positive EPS was associated with a distinct phenotype but not with worse long-term mortality/HTX or VA outcome. A negative EPS did not exclude clinically relevant arrhythmic risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Simon et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Structural congenital heart disease (n=174). Positive electrophysiology study (inducible ventricular arrhythmia) vs. Negative electrophysiology study (non-inducible) was evaluated on Composite of all-cause mortality and heart transplantation (p=0.924). In patients with congenital heart disease, a positive electrophysiology study was not associated with a significant difference in long-term mortality or heart transplantation compared to a negative study (24.3% vs 18.2%, p=0.924).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: