SynthesisJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Preemptive mechanical circulatory support in ventricular tachycardia ablation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe benefit of preemptive mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation remains unclear. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of preemptive MCS to standard care for VT ablation.
methodsAn unrestricted literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science identified studies on preemptive MCS for VT ablation. MCS included percutaneous left ventricular assist devices or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality; secondary endpoints included VT recurrence, procedural time, procedural complications (vascular access, bleeding, stroke, pericardial effusion, heart failure, myocardial infarction), and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
resultsEight studies with 2,262 patients (414 with MCS, 1,848 without) were included. Mean follow-up was 15.8 months, mean age was 62.6 years, 12.5% were women, and mean PAINESD scores were 15.7 in the MCS group and 10.5 in the no-MCS group. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.60-4.19, p = 0.36, I²=81%) or VT recurrence (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68-1.56, p = 0.90, I²=46%). Preemptive MCS was associated with longer procedural times (mean difference 46.0 min, 95% CI 11.1-80.8, p = 0.01, I²=86%), more procedural complications-driven by vascular access and pericardial effusion (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.26-4.03, p = 0.006, I²=33%). Thirty-day MACE was not uniformly defined across studies and was therefore not pooled.
conclusionsPreemptive MCS was not associated with a significant difference in all-cause mortality or VT recurrence in patients undergoing VT ablation but was associated with longer procedures, and more procedural complications. The certainty of evidence was very low, reflecting the observational study design, baseline imbalance between groups, and heterogeneity; these findings do not preclude the selective use of MCS in high-risk patients and require confirmation in randomized trials.
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.