ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2026
Catheter Ablation Outcomes in Electrical Storm Versus Non-Electrical Storm Ventricular Tachycardia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 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
Background: Electrical storm (ES) is a life-threatening manifestation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) associated with highmorbidity and mortality. Catheter ablation is an established therapy for VT, but the impact of ES on ablation outcomes remains uncertain. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA 2020 to compare VT ablation outcomes in patients with and without ES. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect were searched from inception through January 2026. Eligible studies were comparative cohorts reporting periprocedural or long-term outcomes. Random-effects models were used to pool odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs), and mean differences (MDs), with heterogeneity assessed using the I Results: Six observational cohort studies including 3531 patients (1183 with ES and 2348 without ES) were included. Acute procedural endpoints, including post-ablation VT non-inducibility and residual inducible VT, were similar between groups. Periprocedural or in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the ES group (OR 4.71, 95% CI 2.76-8.06), whereas complication rates, procedural duration, radiofrequency ablation time, and need for hemodynamic support did not differ significantly. During follow-up, ES was associated with higher all-cause mortality (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.19-2.35) and greater VT recurrence in both arm-based (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.11-1.91) and time-to-event analyses (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.16-1.57). Conclusions: VT ablation showed comparable acute procedural success and procedural safety in patients with and without ES. However, ES was associated with higher early and long-term mortality and greater VT recurrence, supporting its role as a marker of adverse prognosis.
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.