Evolving patterns in the surgical treatment of malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias
Key result
Electrophysiologically directed endocardial resection shows no difference in 30-day mortality versus AICD.
- n=127
Why the study?
Does electrophysiologically directed endocardial resection improve survival or reduce the need for antiarrhythmic agents compared to AICD placement in patients with intractable ventricular arrhythmias?
Population
127 patients with intractable ventricular arrhythmias undergoing either automatic implantable cardioverter…
Comparison
Electrophysiologically directed endocardial… vs Automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
Up to 4 years
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Mortality rates appear comparable; leaves open whether resection offers net benefit over AICD in observational data.
Key Points
- To compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of endocardial resection versus automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator placement for treating intractable ventricular arrhythmias.
- Retrospective review of clinical records for N=127 patients who underwent either AICD procedures or electrophysiologically directed endocardial resection over a 6-year period.
- Patients were evaluated for 30-day perioperative mortality, post-procedure antiarrhythmic medication requirements, and overall survival rates up to 4 years.
- Thirty-day mortality was 5.6% (5/89) for all AICD procedures, 10.7% (3/28) for AICD with coronary artery bypass grafting, and 11.8% (4/34) for resection, with differences not reaching statistical significance.
- Patients receiving endocardial resection were significantly less likely to require subsequent antiarrhythmic agents than those treated with an AICD (33% versus 61%).
- Two-year survival reached 78% in the resection group versus 72% in the AICD group; at 4 years, resection survival remained 78% with zero late sudden deaths compared to 1 late sudden death in the AICD cohort.
Study Design
Type
Cohort (n=127)
Structured PICO
Does electrophysiologically directed endocardial resection improve survival or reduce the need for antiarrhythmic agents compared to AICD placement in patients with intractable ventricular arrhythmias?
P
Population
127 patients with intractable ventricular arrhythmias who underwent either AICD procedures or endocardial resection, followed for up to 4 years.
E
Exposure
Electrophysiologically directed endocardial resection (n=34)
C
Comparator
Automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (AICD) procedures (n=89)
O
Outcome
30-day mortalityhard clinical
Main Result
Absolute Event Rate: 11.8% vs 5.6%
Electrophysiologically directed endocardial resection remains a viable alternative to AICD for intractable ventricular arrhythmias, offering comparable survival and reduced need for antiarrhythmic drugs at a slightly increased procedural risk.
Cite This Study
Elefteriades et al. (1990) conducted a cohort in Malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias (n=127). Electrophysiologically directed endocardial resection vs. Automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (AICD) was evaluated on Thirty-day mortality. Electrophysiologically directed endocardial resection resulted in an 11.8% 30-day mortality compared to 5.6% for AICD procedures, with no significant difference between the groups.