The Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation in the Management of Ventricular Tachycardia in Comparison With Antiarrhythmic Drugs in Patients With Structural Heart Disease: A Meta-Analysis.

Autor:	Karedath J; Internal Medicine, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, GBR., Valle Villatoro AL; Medicine, University of Salvador, San Salvador, SLV., Faisal S; Internal Medicine, California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences & Psychology, Fairfield, USA.; Internal Medicine, Jinnah Sindh Medical University, Karachi, PAK., Kathuria Anand I; Medicine, University of Delhi, Delhi, IND., Anirudh Chunchu V; Medicine, Avalon University School of Medicine, Willemstad, CUW., Umer M; Internal Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences, Civil Hospital Karachi, Karachi, PAK., Ala S; Medicine, Avalon University School of Medicine, Willemstad, CUW., Amin A; Cardiology, Pakistan Navy Station (PNS) Shifa, Karachi, PAK.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Cureus [Cureus] 2023 Jan 10; Vol. 15 (1), pp. e33608. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Jan 10 (Print Publication: 2023).
DOI:	10.7759/cureus.33608
Abstrakt:	The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in the management of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with structural heart diseases. Two independent investigators searched electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane, and Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) using keyword combinations (Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and free terms) such as "catheter ablation," "ventricular tachycardia," "escalation," and "antiarrhythmic drugs" from inception to November 30, 2022. The primary efficacy outcomes included recurrence of VT at follow-up, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. The secondary efficacy outcomes assessed in the current meta-analysis included implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock and hospitalization due to cardiac reasons. Safety outcomes included treatment-related adverse events and serious adverse events. A total of three studies were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in the risk of recurrence of VT (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.72-1.24, p-value: 0.67), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.67, 1.46, p-value: 0.98), cardiovascular mortality (risk ratio (RR): 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-1.45, p-value: 0.67), incidence of ICD shocks (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.76-1.29, p-value: 0.93, I-square: 0%), and hospitalization due to cardiac reasons in follow-up (RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.55-1.07, p-value: 0.12) between the catheter ablation group and the antiarrhythmic drug group. However, the risk of treatment-related adverse events was lower in the ablation group compared to the antiarrhythmic medicine (AAM) group (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.67, p-value: 0.0001). In this meta-analysis of three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among patients with structural heart disease who had ventricular tachycardia, the incidence of the recurrence of VT, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and ICD shock was not significantly different between patients who received catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic drugs. However, regarding safety, catheter ablation is a safe procedure with a low risk of treatment-related events compared to antiarrhythmic drugs. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. (Copyright © 2023, Karedath et al.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu