Key result
Stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR) resulted in a nonsignificantly higher risk for VT recurrence compared to catheter ablation (HR 2.5; 95% CI 0.97-6.6).
Its licence doesn't allow us to show a copy here.
Why the study?
Stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR) has been proposed to treat refractory ventricular tachycardia in structural heart disease, but its efficacy compared to catheter ablation after prior failure was unknown.
Does stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation improve outcomes (VT recurrence) compared to catheter ablation in patients with structural heart disease and recurrent VT after previous failed catheter ablation?
RCT (n=22)
1:1 using a covariate-adaptive algorithm
Yes
Does stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation improve outcomes (VT recurrence) compared to catheter ablation in patients with structural heart disease and recurrent VT after previous failed catheter ablation?
Hazard Ratio: 2.5 (95% CI 0.97–6.6)
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“At this juncture, when the reported post-STAR long-term VT-free survival rate varies from 0% to 80% with a cumulative rate of 38.6% along with a high rate of treatment-associated adverse events, the clinical significance of the study by Hašková et al in this issue of JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology, reevaluating the safety and efficacy of STAR cannot be overstated.”
In patients with structural heart disease and refractory VT, repeated catheter ablation may offer better clinical efficacy than stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation, though these findings from a small, prematurely terminated trial are hypothesis-generating.
BACKGROUND Stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR) has been proposed to treat refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with structural heart disease (SHD). OBJECTIVES The aim of the STAR-VT-2020 (Stereotactic Ablative Radiosurgery of Recurrent Ventricular Tachycardia in Structural Heart Disease) randomized trial was to compare the efficacy of STAR and catheter ablation (CA) after a failure of previous CA. METHODS Patients with VT recurrences were randomized at 2 centers (June 2020 to January 2024) to the STAR or CA group in a 1:1 fashion using a covariate-adaptive algorithm. In the STAR group, the arrhythmogenic substrate was irradiated by a single dose of 25 Gy delivered by a robotic system (CyberKnife). The planning target volume was delineated by coregistering the electroanatomical substrate map (CARTO 3) with the planning computed tomographic scan. In the CA group, CA was performed using substrate modification strategies. The primary endpoint was VT recurrence, while repeated CA was one of the secondary endpoints. RESULTS A total of 22 patients (68% men, mean age 67 ± 11 years, 27% with ischemic cardiomyopathy, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 31% ± 9%, 3.0 ± 1.3 previous CAs) were enrolled (11 in each group) and followed for 28 ± 17 months. The STAR patients exhibited a nonsignificantly higher risk for VT recurrence (HR: 2.5; 95% CI: 0.97-6.6) than those who underwent CA, and a significantly higher risk of repeated CA for VT (HR: 4.0; 95% CI: 1.2-13.8). Throughout the trial, 13 patients died, 3 underwent heart transplantation, and 3 received left ventricular assist devices, with no significant differences between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS The STAR-VT-2020 trial suggests a potential clinical benefit of repeated CA over STAR in patients with SHD, despite prior failed CA at specialized centers. Because of the small study cohort of highly selected patients and several methodological limitations, the results of the prematurely terminated trial should be considered exploratory and interpreted strictly as hypothesis generating. Larger trials with optimized design are warranted. (Stereotactic Ablative Radiosurgery of Recurrent Ventricular Tachycardia in Structural Heart Disease; NCT04612140).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hašková et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Recurrent ventricular tachycardia in structural heart disease (n=22). Stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR) vs. Catheter ablation (CA) was evaluated on Ventricular tachycardia (VT) recurrence (HR 2.5, 95% CI 0.97-6.6). Stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR) resulted in a nonsignificantly higher risk for VT recurrence compared to catheter ablation (HR 2.5; 95% CI 0.97-6.6).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: