SynthesisEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2026
Heterogeneity of outcomes reporting in catheter ablation trials for ventricular tachycardia: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2026. 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.
- Patient-reported outcomes in studies of STereotactic arrhythmia Radioablation for ventricular tachycardia (PRO-STAR) - A scoping review on behalf of the STOPSTORM.Eu consortium.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsWe sought to systematically catalogue and compare outcomes definitions across prospective clinical trials and registries evaluating ablation in VT to assess the impact of heterogeneous definitions on reported outcomes. METHODS AND
resultsA systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD 42024595265) was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We searched for prospective studies from January 2000 to November 2024. Randomized trials, single-arm feasibility studies, and prospective registries involving ≥10 patients undergoing VT ablation were included. Study outcomes and their definitions were extracted and categorized. Pooled analyses were performed for comparable randomized trial subgroups, and meta-regression evaluated the effect of VT outcome definitions on reported success and complications. Fifty-nine studies were included: 15 randomized trials, 6 feasibility studies, and 38 prospective studies/registries. Definitions of acute procedural success varied, with most using acute clinical VT non-inducibility and others using only elimination of the clinical VT. VT recurrence was the most frequently reported long-term outcome; however, definitions differed markedly (VT recurrence or recurrence causing device therapy). Pooled analysis of prophylactic ablation vs. delayed ablation showed reduced VT recurrence (HR 0.63, 95% CI: 46-0.86) but no difference in hospitalization or mortality. Meta-regression demonstrated that an outcome of any VT recurrence yielded a higher failure rate of 51.0% compared to stricter definitions, such as VT-causing therapy at 37.3% or VT-causing shock only at 23.4% (P = 0.002). Safety outcomes were inconsistently reported.
conclusionOutcome definition in VT ablation trials showed substantial heterogeneity, limiting cross-trial comparability and meta-analytic synthesis. Development of a minimum set of standardized outcomes for VT ablation may improve consistency and clinical interpretability of VT trials.
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.