SynthesisMedicine2026
Early catheter ablation as first-line therapy for ventricular tachycardia due to structural heart disease: A 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVentricular tachycardia (VT) poses a significant risk in patients with both ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are placed to prevent sudden cardiac death, but ICD shocks can be painful and are known to have a negative effect on quality of life and survival. Currently, catheter ablation (CA) is usually used when anti-arrhythmic drugs fail to suppress VT, but its efficacy as a first-line treatment is uncertain. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were done to compare CA with standard medical therapy and/or ICD as first-line therapy for VT due to structural heart disease.
methodsWe included only randomized controlled trials comparing early CA with medical therapy and ICD implantation or ICD implantation alone in adults with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy. We searched various databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Elsevier, clinicaltrials.gov, and previously published meta-analyses, for relevant studies from the date of inception till the completion of the literature search process. The risk of bias was assessed through the ROB 2.0 tool. The Primary outcome was defined as a composite of VT recurrence, appropriate ICD-shock, cardiovascular hospitalization, severe treatment-related complications, and death. A random effects meta-analysis was performed, and the GRADE tool was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.
resultsEight randomized controlled trials, including 1333 patients, were analyzed. CA as first-line therapy significantly reduced the risk of the composite primary outcome - VT recurrence, appropriate ICD shocks, cardiovascular hospitalization, severe treatment-related complications, and death - compared to standard therapy (HR 0.66, 95% confidence interval: 0.55-0.80; P < .0001). Subgroup analysis showed greater benefit in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR 0.69), while results in mixed cardiomyopathy populations were inconclusive due to small sample size. CA also lowered mortality risk (HR 0.88), though this was not statistically significant. Overall heterogeneity was low (I2 = 19%), and the certainty of evidence was rated high.
conclusionIn patients with structural heart disease and VT, an initial strategy of CA as first-line therapy was found to be associated with better clinical outcomes.
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.