Suppr超能文献

缺血性心肌病中心室性心动过速的预防性导管消融:一项随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析

Prophylactic catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia in ischemic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

作者信息

Atti Varunsiri, Vuddanda Venkat, Turagam Mohit K, Vemula Praveen, Shah Zubair, Nagam Himakar, Yandrapalli Srikanth, Jazayeri Mohammad-Ali, Koerber Scott, Gonzalez Juan Viles, Natale Andrea, Di Biase Luigi, Lakkireddy Dhanunjaya R

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.

Department of Cardiovascular Disease, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

出版信息

J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2018 Nov;53(2):207-215. doi: 10.1007/s10840-018-0376-5. Epub 2018 Apr 21.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Catheter ablation is proven to be an effective strategy for drug refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT) in ischemic cardiomyopathy. However, the appropriate timing of VT ablation and identifying the group of patients that may receive the greatest benefit remains uncertain. There is limited data on the effect on prophylactic catheter ablation (PCA) in the prevention of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy, electrical storm, and mortality.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search through November 1, 2017, for all eligible studies comparing PCA + ICD versus ICD only in eligible patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Clinical outcomes included all ICD therapies including ICD shocks and electrical storm. Additional outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and complications.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (N = 346) met inclusion criteria. PCA was associated with a significantly lower ICD therapies (OR 0.49; CI 0.28 to 0.87; p = 0.01) including ICD shocks [OR 0.38; CI 0.22 to 0.64; p = 0.0003) and electrical storm (OR 0.55; CI 0.30 to 1.01; p = 0.05) when compared with ICD only. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (OR 0.77; CI 0.41 to 1.46; p = 0.42), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.49; CI 0.16 to 1.50; p = 0.21), and major adverse events (OR 1.45; CI 0.52 to 4.01; p = 0.47) between two groups.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest prophylactic catheter ablation decreases ICD therapies, including shocks and electrical storm with no improvement in overall mortality. There is a need for future carefully designed randomized clinical trials.

摘要

背景

导管消融已被证明是治疗缺血性心肌病药物难治性室性心动过速(VT)的有效策略。然而,VT消融的合适时机以及确定可能从治疗中获益最大的患者群体仍不明确。关于预防性导管消融(PCA)对预防植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)治疗、电风暴和死亡率影响的数据有限。

方法

我们对截至2017年11月1日的所有符合条件的研究进行了全面的文献检索,这些研究比较了缺血性心肌病合格患者中PCA + ICD与单纯ICD的疗效。临床结局包括所有ICD治疗,包括ICD电击和电风暴。其他结局包括全因死亡率、心血管死亡率和并发症。

结果

三项随机对照试验(RCT)(N = 346)符合纳入标准。与单纯ICD相比,PCA与显著更低的ICD治疗(OR 0.49;CI 0.28至0.87;p = 0.01)相关,包括ICD电击[OR 0.38;CI 0.22至0.64;p = 0.0003]和电风暴(OR 0.55;CI 0.30至1.01;p = 0.05)。两组在全因死亡率(OR 0.77;CI 0.41至1.46;p = 0.42)、心血管死亡率(OR 0.49;CI 0.16至1.50;p = 0.21)和主要不良事件(OR 1.45;CI 0.52至4.01;p = 0.47)方面无显著差异。

结论

这些结果表明预防性导管消融可减少ICD治疗,包括电击和电风暴,但总体死亡率无改善。未来需要精心设计的随机临床试验。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验