ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2021
Catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia in patients with electrical storm, with a special focus on patients with Chagas disease.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes comparison between catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia in Chagas disease versus ischemic and dilated cardiomyopathy - a retrospective cohort study.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
- Mechanisms behind the high mortality rate in chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy: Unmasking a three-headed monster.European journal of heart failure · 2024Review
- Catheter Ablation in Arrhythmic Cardiac Diseases: Endocardial and Epicardial Ablation.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Advanced management of ventricular arrhythmias in chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy.Heart rhythm O2 · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are few reports on the benefits of catheter ablation (CA) in patients with electrical storm (ES). None of these publications included patients with Chagas disease (ChD). Our aims are to analyze (1) all the cases of ES treated with CA and (2) the subgroup of patients with ChD.
methodsProspective analysis of consecutive patients with ES due to monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) treated with CA.
resultsWe included 38 patients: 28 males; median age of 63.5 (IQR 55-71) years old; ejection fraction (LVEF) 0.30 (0.25-0.40). Sixteen patients (42.1%) had ChD. The patients experienced 21 (15-37) VT episodes and received 7 (3-13) ICD shocks before CA. Forty-six procedures were performed (7 required epicardial access). All patients experienced ES suppression after CA. After 35 (10-64) months of follow-up (1.21 procedures per patient), 23 patients (60.5%) remain free from any VT; 35 patients (92.1%) were free from ES, and 11 patients (28.9%) died from non-arrhythmic causes. One patient underwent heart transplantation. Patients with ChD were younger (60 vs. 67 years old; p = 0.033), significantly more women (50% vs. 9.1%; p = 0.005), and had higher LVEF (0.40 vs. 0.28; p < 0.001) than the other patients. Long-term outcome of ChD patients was similar to that of the overall population. Only age and LVEF independently predicted mortality.
conclusionCA was associated with acute ventricular arrhythmia suppression in all patients with ES. Freedom rates from ES and VT were 92.1% and 60.5% respectively. Despite having a lower-risk clinical profile, patients with ChD had a comparable outcome to that of the other patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.