ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2024
Catheter Ablation for Ventricular Tachycardias: Current Status and Future Perspectives.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation for ventricular tachycardia: Mechanisms, workflow, outcomes, and future directions.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Review
- Identifying the Presence and Characteristics of Mid-Myocardial and Epicardial Fibrosis From Intracardiac Electrograms in Patients Undergoing Ventricular Arrhythmia Ablation Using a Transformer-Based Self-Supervised Classifier.Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology · 2026Article
- Beyond the ICD: Navigating Ventricular Tachycardia Suppression Strategies in the Modern Era.Current cardiology reports · 2026Review
- The Role of Multimodality Imaging in Guiding Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation: An Updated Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- How to assess clinical implication of catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia in patients with structural heart diseases.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with systolic heart failure remains a critical yet challenging area of non-pharmacological therapy. Despite positive outcomes in atrial fibrillation, evidence for the efficacy of VT ablation in reducing cardiac mortality is inconclusive due to the absence of standardized ablation strategies. The primary challenges include difficulties in identifying suitable ablation targets and their deep locations within myocardial tissue. Current techniques, such as voltage mapping, provide valuable insights; however, they are limited by the presence of numerous bystander areas and the occurrence of incomplete transmural scarring. Recent advancements in functional substrate mapping have focused on identifying critical isthmuses without requiring hemodynamic stabilization during VT, thereby shifting the emphasis to the analysis of potentials during baseline rhythm. While methods like isochronal late activation mapping have improved target identification, they primarily address conduction abnormalities without adequately considering repolarization heterogeneity. This review highlights emerging technologies that utilize unipolar potentials to assess repolarization heterogeneities and identify VT isthmuses. Furthermore, novel ablation sources such as pulsed-field ablation, bipolar ablation, and ultra-low temperature cryoablation are being explored to create deeper and more durable lesions, addressing the limitations of traditional radiofrequency ablation. These advancements aim to reduce VT recurrence and improve overall treatment efficacy. Ultimately, understanding these innovative strategies is expected to optimize procedural outcomes and significantly enhance the management of patients with scar-related VT.
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.