ArticleJournal of interventional cardiology2024
Clinical and Laboratory Predictors of Long-Term Outcomes after Catheter Ablation for a Ventricular Electrical Storm.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pre-ablation and Post-ablation Factors Influencing the Prognosis of Patients with Electrical Storm Treated by Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation: An Update.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ventricular electrical storm (VES) is characterized by the occurrence of multiple episodes of sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VA) over a short period of time. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been reported as an effective treatment in patients with ventricular tachycardia (VT). Objective: The aim of the present study was to indicate the short-term and long-term predictors of recurrent VA after RFA was performed due to VES. Methods: A retrospective, single-centre study included patients, who had undergone RFA due to VT between 2012 and 2021. In terms of the short-term (at the end of RFA) effectiveness of RFA, the following scenarios were distinguished: complete success: inability to induce any VT; partial success: absence of clinical VT; failure: inducible clinical VT. In terms of the long-term (12 months) effectiveness of RFA, the following scenarios were distinguished: effective ablation: no recurrence of any VT; partially successful ablation: VT recurrence; ineffective ablation: VES recurrence. Results: The study included 62 patients. Complete short-term RFA success was obtained in 77.4% of patients. The estimated cumulative VT-free survival and VES-free survival were, respectively, 28% and 33% at the 12-month follow-up. Ischemic cardiomyopathy and complete short-term RFA success were predictors of long-term RFA efficacy. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and GFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m Conclusion: Ischemic cardiomyopathy and short-term complete success of RFA were predictors of no VES recurrence during the 12-month follow-up, while NLR and GFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m
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.