ReviewCureus2023
The Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation in the Management of Ventricular Tachycardia in Comparison With Antiarrhythmic Drugs in Patients With Structural Heart Disease: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in the management of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with structural heart diseases. Two independent investigators searched electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane, and Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) using keyword combinations (Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and free terms) such as "catheter ablation," "ventricular tachycardia," "escalation," and "antiarrhythmic drugs" from inception to November 30, 2022. The primary efficacy outcomes included recurrence of VT at follow-up, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. The secondary efficacy outcomes assessed in the current meta-analysis included implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock and hospitalization due to cardiac reasons. Safety outcomes included treatment-related adverse events and serious adverse events. A total of three studies were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in the risk of recurrence of VT (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.72-1.24, p-value: 0.67), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.67, 1.46, p-value: 0.98), cardiovascular mortality (risk ratio (RR): 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-1.45, p-value: 0.67), incidence of ICD shocks (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.76-1.29, p-value: 0.93, I-square: 0%), and hospitalization due to cardiac reasons in follow-up (RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.55-1.07, p-value: 0.12) between the catheter ablation group and the antiarrhythmic drug group. However, the risk of treatment-related adverse events was lower in the ablation group compared to the antiarrhythmic medicine (AAM) group (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.67, p-value: 0.0001). In this meta-analysis of three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among patients with structural heart disease who had ventricular tachycardia, the incidence of the recurrence of VT, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and ICD shock was not significantly different between patients who received catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic drugs. However, regarding safety, catheter ablation is a safe procedure with a low risk of treatment-related events compared to antiarrhythmic drugs.
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.