ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2025
Comparison of Total Intravenous Anesthesia Versus Volatile Anesthesia on Arrhythmia Inducibility and Clinical Outcomes During Catheter Ablation for Ventricular Tachycardia.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anaesthetic Techniques for Cardiac Ablation-A Scoping Review.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Comparison of Total Intravenous Anesthesia Versus Volatile Anesthesia on Arrhythmia Inducibility and Clinical Outcomes During Catheter Ablation for Ventricular Tachycardia.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Catheter ablation is highly efficacious for the treatment of ventricular tachycardia (VT). In patients with structural heart disease, catheter ablation may be performed under general anesthesia (GA). There are limited data on the effect of anesthetic agents on VT inducibility. We compared VT inducibility using total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) versus volatile anesthesia. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, patients who underwent catheter ablation for VT between January 2019 and May 2023 were included. Clinical data, procedural reports, and long-term outcomes were collected from the electronic medical records. Patients were grouped based on the type of anesthetic agent used to maintain GA during the procedure. Results: There were 207 patients maintained under GA using TIVA and 56 patients using volatile anesthesia. One hundred and seventy-five of the 207 (84.5%) patients in the TIVA group were inducible for VT compared to 38 of 56 (67.9%) in the volatile group (OR [95% CI]: 3.8 [1.4-10.4], Conclusion: Use of volatile GA agents was associated with a higher incidence of VT non-inducibility compared to TIVA. TIVA was associated with a lower risk of VA recurrence in follow-up. The observed effect on VT inducibility could be explained by effects on ventricular effective refractory period.
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.