ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2026
Impacts of Hemodynamic Support on Ventricular Arrhythmia Ablation.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData on the efficacy of hemodynamic support (HS) for protecting ventricular arrhythmia (VA) ablation in high-risk heart failure (HF) patients with an impaired left ventricular function and its impact on mortality is limited.
objectivesThis study aimed to assess procedural efficacy, related complications, VA-free survival, and mortality of HF patients who underwent protected VA ablation with HS.
methodsData from consecutive HF patients undergoing VA ablation at our center between 2018 and 2024 were analyzed. HS included the treatment with an Impella, an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Patients were classified based on their HF status according to current guidelines.
resultsA total of 187 patients (61.5 ± 10.9 years) were included. 124/187 patients were in advanced HF (66%, 63.5 ± 8.9 years). In 68/187 patients (36%, 60.8 ± 9.8 years), HS was required. Procedural parameter did not differ between the groups except for fluoroscopy times (p < 0.001). Acute procedural success (p = 0.670) and major procedure-related complications (p = 0.726) were comparable. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with HS (p < 0.001). In advanced HF patients, freedom from VA-recurrence was lower (p = 0.016) and mortality higher (p = 0.009). HS with an ECMO and LVAD, but not with an Impella, was associated with increased VA-recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 3.66, confidence Interval [CI] 1.732-7.715, p < 0.001) and mortality (HR 3.95, CI 1.091-14.280, p = 0.036).
conclusionIn high-risk HF patients, VA ablation was feasible with comparable acute success and procedural complication rates. Patients with ECMO or LVAD showed higher in-hospital mortality and higher VA recurrence compared to Impella-supported procedures, likely reflecting more advanced disease severity rather than differences in procedural efficacy.
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.