SynthesisMedicine2026
Incremental benefits of catheter ablation in patients with structural heart disease undergoing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy for ventricular arrhythmias: A PRISMA compliant systematic review and meta analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStructural heart disease (SHD) significantly increases the risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias (VAs), contributing to sudden cardiac death. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are the cornerstone of prevention but do not eliminate arrhythmia recurrences or reduce the arrhythmogenic substrate. Catheter ablation has emerged as a potential adjunctive therapy to reduce VA burden and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) interventions in patients with SHD. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the incremental benefits of catheter ablation compared to antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy or standard care in patients with SHD undergoing ICD implantation for VAs.
methodsA systematic search was conducted till April 2025 across PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, google scholar and science direct following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies included patients with SHD receiving ICD therapy, comparing catheter ablation with any alternative treatment. Outcomes assessed included mortality, arrhythmia recurrence, disease burden, and ICD interventions. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager, calculating odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), with heterogeneity assessed via I2 statistics.
resultsEight studies were included, encompassing 536 patients in the catheter ablation group and 560 patients in the control group. Catheter ablation did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.48-1.29, P = .34), cardiovascular mortality (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.37-1.43, P = .36), or death (OR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.53-1.38, P = .52). However, catheter ablation was associated with a significant reduction in recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) (OR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.27-0.64, P < .001) and cardiac hospitalization (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.34-0.89, P = .015). No significant differences were observed for VT storm or electrical storm. Importantly, catheter ablation significantly reduced inappropriate ICD shocks (OR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.20-0.66, P < .001), while rates of appropriate ICD shocks and antitachycardia pacing were similar between groups.
conclusionCatheter ablation offers significant benefits in reducing arrhythmia burden and inappropriate ICD shocks but does not impact overall mortality compared to antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with SHD undergoing ICD implantation.
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.