Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39080150›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2024

Management of Ventricular Arrhythmias in Heart Failure: Can Less Be More?

Eitan Frankel, Reginald Ho

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Eitan FrankelThomas Jefferson University Hospital, 111 S. 11th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19146, USA. Eitan.Frankel@Jefferson.edu.
Reginald HoThomas Jefferson University Hospital, 111 S. 11th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19146, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewVentricular arrhythmias (VAs) affect many patients with heart failure and underlying structural heart disease and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Antiarrhythmic drugs are often the initial treatment, but medication alone often fails to sufficiently suppress VAs. While catheter ablation (CA) remains the gold standard for treatment of VAs, CA is an invasive procedure and can be associated with periprocedural complications including acute clinical decompensation. Thus, there is an important need for alternative therapies. RECENT

findingsRecent advances in risk stratification and the development of new ablation technologies may reduce some of the periprocedural complications and limitations of CA. In addition, less invasive therapies for VAs may provide an alternative treatment strategy for patients in both the acute and chronic setting. For patients acutely admitted with ventricular tachycardia electrical storm (VT-ES) or recurrent VT and cardiogenic shock, risk stratification tools have been developed to identify patients at high risk of acute hemodynamic decompensation during CA. These patients require a multidisciplinary approach and might need mechanical circulatory support (MCS) if CA is selected as the treatment strategy. Alternatively, less invasive therapies targeting the autonomic nervous system may be reasonable. In the chronic setting, developments in medical therapy have reduced the risk of sudden cardiac death in heart failure patients and stereotactic whole-body radiation (SBRT) has evolved as a potential, non-invasive therapy. Further research is needed to personalize VA therapy for individual patients.

Indexed as

Anti-Arrhythmia AgentsCatheter AblationHeart FailureTachycardia, VentricularHumansRisk AssessmentAnti-Arrhythmia AgentsAutonomic Nervous System (ANS)Less InvasiveVentricular Arrhythmias

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.