SynthesisJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2026
Mechanical Circulatory Support During Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Procedural and Clinical Outcomes.
Synthesis in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mechanical Circulatory Support During Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Procedural and Clinical Outcomes.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Catheter ablation is an established therapy for ventricular tachycardia (VT); however, hemodynamic instability frequently limits procedural mapping and success. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices are increasingly used to maintain end-organ perfusion during VT ablation, yet their impact on clinical outcomes remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the impact of tMCS on clinical outcomes and periprocedural complications in patients undergoing VT ablation. A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL was conducted from database inception through December 2025. We included observational studies enrolling adult patients undergoing VT ablation with tMCS, compared with VT ablation performed without MCS. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality, procedural success, VT recurrence, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Ten observational studies comprising 16,838 patients were included, of whom 1402 received tMCS. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between tMCS and no-MCS groups (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.68 to 4.26), procedural success (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.21), VT recurrence (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22), or MACE (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.01). However, tMCS use was associated with significantly higher in-hospital mortality (RR 7.41, 95% CI 4.77 to 11.66). The tMCS group also demonstrated increased risks of stroke, pericardial effusion or tamponade, and periprocedural complications. In non-randomized studies, tMCS during VT ablation was not associated with improved long-term outcomes, while higher in-hospital mortality and complications likely reflected patient selection and timing of support rather than adverse device effects.
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.