Meta-analysis comparing outcomes of catheter ablation for ventricular arrhythmia in ischemic versus nonischemic cardiomyopathy.
cardiomyopathy
ischemic heart disease
pacing and electrophysiology
Journal
Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE
ISSN: 1540-8159
Titre abrégé: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7803944
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
received:
04
06
2020
revised:
20
10
2020
accepted:
15
11
2020
pubmed:
21
11
2020
medline:
20
11
2021
entrez:
20
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Catheter ablation is an effective treatment for ventricular arrhythmia (VA) in ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). However, results in non-ICM (NICM) patients are not satisfactory, and studies comparing differences between NICM and ICM are limited. We conducted a meta-analysis of procedural characteristics and long-term outcomes of catheter ablation for VA, comparing results between ICM and NICM. Studies in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed. Four studies reporting comparison of catheter ablation of VA between ICM and NICM were examined. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to appraise study quality. A random-effects model with inverse variance method was used for comparisons. Epicardial approach was significantly more undertaken for the NICM group than in the ICM group (odds ratio [OR]: 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.09-0.18; P < .00001). Mean ablation time (P = .54), fluoroscopy time (P = .55), and procedural time (P = .18) did not differ significantly between the ICM and NICM groups. Procedural failure rates (OR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.24-0.89; P = .02) and VA recurrence rates (risk ratio [RR]: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.46-1.01; P = .06) were significantly higher in the NICM group than in the ICM group. However, all-cause mortality (RR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.75-2.49; P = .31) did not differ significantly between groups. Procedural failure and VA recurrence rates were significantly higher in the NICM group, despite significantly more frequent epicardial access. These highlight the limitations of catheter ablation for VA in NICM, given our current knowledge.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Catheter ablation is an effective treatment for ventricular arrhythmia (VA) in ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). However, results in non-ICM (NICM) patients are not satisfactory, and studies comparing differences between NICM and ICM are limited. We conducted a meta-analysis of procedural characteristics and long-term outcomes of catheter ablation for VA, comparing results between ICM and NICM.
METHODS
Studies in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed. Four studies reporting comparison of catheter ablation of VA between ICM and NICM were examined. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to appraise study quality. A random-effects model with inverse variance method was used for comparisons.
RESULTS
Epicardial approach was significantly more undertaken for the NICM group than in the ICM group (odds ratio [OR]: 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.09-0.18; P < .00001). Mean ablation time (P = .54), fluoroscopy time (P = .55), and procedural time (P = .18) did not differ significantly between the ICM and NICM groups. Procedural failure rates (OR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.24-0.89; P = .02) and VA recurrence rates (risk ratio [RR]: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.46-1.01; P = .06) were significantly higher in the NICM group than in the ICM group. However, all-cause mortality (RR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.75-2.49; P = .31) did not differ significantly between groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Procedural failure and VA recurrence rates were significantly higher in the NICM group, despite significantly more frequent epicardial access. These highlight the limitations of catheter ablation for VA in NICM, given our current knowledge.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33216394
doi: 10.1111/pace.14129
pmc: PMC7984079
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
54-62Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Eur Heart J. 2012 Jun;33(12):1440-50
pubmed: 22411192
Stat Med. 2008 Feb 28;27(5):746-63
pubmed: 17592831
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2018 Nov;53(2):207-215
pubmed: 29680972
J Arrhythm. 2015 Feb;31(1):22-8
pubmed: 26336519
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2017 Sep;49(3):227-235
pubmed: 28624892
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018 Sep;4(9):1141-1150
pubmed: 30236386
Heart Rhythm. 2015 Sep;12(9):1997-2007
pubmed: 26031376
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2021 Jan;44(1):54-62
pubmed: 33216394
Stat Med. 2003 Sep 15;22(17):2693-710
pubmed: 12939780
Circulation. 2014 Feb 18;129(7):728-36
pubmed: 24211823
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
pubmed: 3802833
Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev. 2015 Dec;4(3):177-83
pubmed: 26835122
J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Mar 23;7(6):
pubmed: 29572321
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018 May;4(5):660-668
pubmed: 29798795
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017 Jul;3(7):767-778
pubmed: 29759543
Card Electrophysiol Clin. 2017 Mar;9(1):47-54
pubmed: 28167085
Heart Rhythm. 2016 Oct;13(10):1957-63
pubmed: 27392945
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2011 Oct;4(5):653-9
pubmed: 21841191
JAMA Cardiol. 2016 Nov 1;1(8):938-944
pubmed: 27556589
N Engl J Med. 1999 Dec 16;341(25):1882-90
pubmed: 10601507
J Arrhythm. 2018 Aug 28;34(4):347-355
pubmed: 30167005
N Engl J Med. 2002 Mar 21;346(12):877-83
pubmed: 11907286
N Engl J Med. 2016 Jul 14;375(2):111-21
pubmed: 27149033
N Engl J Med. 2004 May 20;350(21):2151-8
pubmed: 15152060
N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 29;375(13):1221-30
pubmed: 27571011
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Jan;5(1):13-24
pubmed: 30678778