ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2025
Prognostic Value of Antiarrhythmic Drug Suppression of Electrical Storm Prior to Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEarly ablation after electrical storm (ES) has been associated with improved ventricular tachycardia (VT)-free survival. Antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) can acutely temper ES in some patients allowing for delayed elective ablation, but they may be ineffective in other patients, who may require urgent ablation. The prognostic impact of acute AAD efficacy for ES patients undergoing ablation is unclear and may help to inform timing of VT ablation. The purpose of our study is to compare the outcomes of patients with ES undergoing VT ablation based on acute AAD efficacy.
methodsThis retrospective study of patients with ES who underwent VT ablation at our institution between November 2018 and September 2023 compared those who underwent urgent ablation due to inefficacy of AAD (Urgent) versus those in whom AAD controlled ES acutely and ablation could be performed in an elective manner (Elective). The timing of ablation was based on provider discretion and ability to control ES on AAD. Long term survival, VT-free survival, ES-free survival and repeat ablation-free survival were compared through Kaplan Meir analysis and the log-rank test. Individual predictors of survival and VT-free survival were identified through Cox proportional hazards model with univariate and multivariate regression analysis.
resultsOne hundred and twenty patients were included (n = 68 urgent, median 7 days postepisode of ES vs. n = 52 elective, median 86 days post ES). Major complications were significantly higher in the urgent group (17.7% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.023). The Elective group had significantly improved long-term survival at time of follow up (χ
conclusionPatients with ES who were able to be electrically stabilized with AAD and returned for an elective ablation had improved survival compared to those who required urgent ablation, although there were no differences in VT and ES recurrence rates. Stabilization with AAD before VT ablation is a positive prognostic factor for survival in ES.
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.