ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2025
Prognostic value of non-invasive programmed ventricular stimulation after VT ablation to predict VT recurrences.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2025. 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prognostic value of (non)-invasive programmed ventricular stimulation (NIPS) to predict recurrences of ventricular tachycardia (VT) is under discussion. Optimal endpoints of VT ablation are not well defined, and optimal timepoint of NIPS is unknown. The goal of this study was to evaluate the ability of programmed ventricular stimulation at the end of the VT ablation procedure (PVS) and NIPS after VT ablation to identify patients at high risk for VT recurrence.
methodsBetween January 2016 and February 2022, consecutive patients with VT and structural heart disease undergoing first VT ablation and consecutive NIPS were included. In total, 138 patients were included. All patients underwent NIPS through their implanted ICDs after a median of 3 (1-5) days after ablation (at least 2 drive cycle lengths (500 and 400 ms) and up to four right ventricular extrastimuli until refractoriness). Clinical VT was defined by comparison with 12-lead electrocardiograms and stored ICD electrograms from spontaneous VT episodes. Patients were followed for a median of 37 (13-61) months.
resultsOf the 138 patients, 104 were non-inducible (75%), 27 were inducible for non-clinical VTs (20%), and 7 for clinical VT (5%). In 107 patients (78%), concordant results of PVS and NIPS were observed. After 37 ± 20 months, the recurrence rate for any ventricular arrhythmia was 40% (normal NIPS 29% vs. inducible VT during NIPS 66%; log-rank p = 0.001) and for clinical VT was 3% (normal NIPS 1% vs. inducible VT during NIPS 9%; log-rank p = 0.045). Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of NIPS were higher compared to PVS (PPV: 65% vs. 46% and NPV: 68% vs. 61%). NIPS revealed the highest NPV among patients with ICM and LVEF > 35%. Patients with inducible VT during NIPS had the highest VT recurrences and overall mortality. Patients with both negative PVS and NIPS had the lowest any VT recurrence rates with 32%. Early re-ablation of patients with recurrent VTs during index hospitalization was feasible but did not reveal better long-term VT-free survival.
conclusionsIn patients after VT ablation and structural heart disease, NIPS is superior to post-ablation PVS to stratify the risk of VT recurrences. The PPV and NPV of NIPS at day 3 were superior compared to PVS at the end of the procedure to predict recurrent VT, especially in patients with ICM.
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.