ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease2026
Long-term outcomes following electrophysiology study for ventricular arrhythmia evaluation in congenital heart disease: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Risk stratification for ventricular arrhythmia in congenital heart disease (CHD) remains challenging, and the role of programmed ventricular stimulation is incompletely defined. Objective: This study evaluated long-term outcomes after electrophysiology study (EPS) for ventricular arrhythmia assessment in CHD practice. Methods: Retrospective, single-center cohort study including consecutive patients with structural CHD who underwent EPS with programmed ventricular stimulation for ventricular arrhythmia evaluation between 1995 and 2022. Baseline characteristics were compared between inducible (EPS+) and non-inducible (EPS-) patients. The primary outcomes were a composite of all-cause mortality and heart transplantation (HTX) and a composite ventricular arrhythmia (VA) outcome. Results: Among 174 patients, median age at EPS was 33.8 years (IQR 24.1-46.1), 65 (37.4%) were female, 106 (60.9%) had conotruncal CHD, and 37 (21.3%) were EPS+. EPS + patients more often had conotruncal CHD, abnormal RVEF, and longer PR and QRS duration. During a median follow-up of 13.0 (8.1-19.4) years, there was no significant difference in mortality/HTX (EPS+ 24.3% vs EPS- 18.2%, log-rank p = 0.924) or VA outcome (EPS+ 27.0% vs 12.4%, log-rank p = 0.113) between EPS+ and EPS- patients. After a median time of 2.8 (0.3-4.5) years 28 EPS- patients (20.4%) received an ICD. Of these, 16 (57.1%) received the ICD for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or sustained ventricular tachycardia. Conclusions: In patients with CHD referred for EPS for ventricular arrhythmia evaluation, a positive EPS was associated with a distinct phenotype but not with worse long-term mortality/HTX or VA outcome. A negative EPS did not exclude clinically relevant arrhythmic risk.
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.