ArticleCirculation reports2025
Timing of Catheter Ablation for Ventricular Tachycardia and Prognosis After Emergent Hospitalization - Results From the JROAD-DPC Database.
Article in Circulation reports, 2025. 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.
- Perspectives on Clinical Biomarkers Based on the Pathophysiology of Arrhythmias.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Catheter ablation (CA) for ventricular tachycardia (VT) is an effective treatment for preventing VT recurrence. However, the optimal timing and outcomes of CA for VT during emergent admission remains unclear. Methods and Results: We retrospectively investigated patients who underwent CA for VT after emergent admission between 2012 and 2021 using the Japanese Registry of All Cardiac and Vascular Diseases database. The clinical characteristics, complication and outcomes (primary outcome: in-hospital death; secondary outcome: emergent re-admission for VT within 30 days) were compared between the patients who underwent CA within (CA ≤3) and after (CA >3) the third day of admission. A total of 3,827 patients (787 patients had CA ≤3 days, and 3,040 patients had CA >3 days) was enrolled. Compared with the CA >3 days group, those with CA ≤3 were younger and had less comorbidities of underlying heart diseases and medications. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, CA ≤3 days or >3 days after emergent admission was not associated with in-hospital death and re-admission for VT. Furthermore, the emergent re-admission and overall complication rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Conclusions: The clinical background differed substantially between patients who underwent CA within 3 days and those who underwent CA later during emergency hospitalization. An emergency CA for VT is not strongly recommended; however, it might be acceptable in cases with unavoidable circumstances.
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.