ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2026
Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation in Structural Heart Disease With LVEF > 35%: Clinical Outcomes and Recurrence Patterns.
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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn patients with structural heart disease (SHD) and moderately impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF > 35%), data on outcomes after ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation remain limited. This analysis focuses on VT recurrence after ablation in patients presenting with sustained VT and LVEF > 35% within a secondary-prevention population.
objectiveTo evaluate procedural outcomes and long-term VT recurrence after catheter ablation in SHD patients with LVEF > 35%.
methodsWe analyzed 219 consecutive patients with SHD and LVEF > 35% undergoing VT ablation, including 89 with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and 130 with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM). Procedural characteristics, complications, and VT recurrence during follow-up were compared between groups.
resultsICM patients were older, more frequently hypertensive, and had slightly lower LVEF than NICM patients. Ablation was predominantly endocardial in ICM, whereas combined endocardial-epicardial ablation was required in 28% of NICM patients (p < 0.001). Acute VT non-inducibility was achieved more frequently in ICM than in NICM (93% vs 67%; p < 0.001). Procedural complications were infrequent and comparable between groups (6% overall; p = 0.342). During follow-up, VT recurred in 35% of patients, more frequently in NICM than ICM (42% vs 25%; p = 0.004). Cardiomyopathy type emerged as the only independent predictor of VT recurrence (HR 2.312, CI 1.3-4.0, p = 0.004), while acute non-inducibility was associated with a lower recurrence risk.
conclusionVT ablation in SHD patients with LVEF > 35% was associated with acceptable safety and moderate arrhythmia control. Outcomes were more favorable in ICM than in NICM, reflecting the heterogeneity of arrhythmic risk in this secondary prevention population.
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.