ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Efficacy and safety of ventricular tachycardia ablation versus antiarrhythmics in ischemic cardiomyopathy: a network meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Imaging-Guided Versus Conventional Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Review
- Cardiac Sympathetic Neuromodulation in the Management of Refractory Electrical Storm: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Timing of Catheter Ablation for Ventricular Tachycardia in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: Evidence, Mechanisms, and the Emerging Role of Timely ICD-Guided Intervention.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined catheter ablation (CA) and class III antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) in secondary prevention of ventricular arrhythmias (VA) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CA versus AADs (amiodarone, sotalol) in this population.
methodsMEDLINE (Pubmed), Scopus, Cochrane and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched until October 26, 2025 for RCTs. Double-independent study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed. Appropriate shock and electrical storm (ES) were the primary efficacy outcomes. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated via random-effects frequentist models. Registered in PROSPERO: CRD42025640326.
resultsTotally, 14 RCTs (13 in main analysis) and 2,237 patients (2,177 in main analysis) were analyzed. CA was superior against AAD in appropriate shocks (RR = 0.68, 95%CI = [0.47,0.99]; p = 0.043). A nonsignificant reduction was found in ES (RR = 0.81, 95%CI = [0.63,1.03]; p = 0.088) and VA recurrence (RR = 0.86, 95%CI = [0.68,1.08]; p = 0.197). CA was superior to AAD in heart failure (HF) exacerbation (RR = 0.76, 95%CI = [0.58,0.99], p = 0.043) and undetected ventricular tachycardia (VT) (RR = 0.27, 95%CI = [0.15,0.46], p < 0.001). No differences were noted regarding any serious adverse event, all-cause or cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular or VA hospitalization. In secondary analyses, CA was superior against amiodarone in serious adverse events (RR = 0.33, 95%CI = [0.15,0.75]). The results remained robust in sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsCA was superior in efficacy with comparable safety compared to AAD in reducing appropriate shocks, HF and undetected VT in patients with ICM and an ICD for secondary prevention. No significant differences were found in overall VA recurrences, ES, all-cause or cardiovascular mortality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41718955What 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.