Background: Catheter ablation (CA) is an established therapeutic modality for ventricular tachycardia (VT).
Objective: We compared the clinical outcomes of CA for VT vs medical therapy from all previously performed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and compared these to contemporary observational studies.
Methods: A comprehensive database search through to August 2018 identified 8 eligible studies enrolling 797 patients.
Results: In RCTs, VT recurrence and electrical VT storm were significantly reduced in the CA group vs medical therapy group (relative risk [RR] 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.95, P = .01; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51-0.94, P = .02, respectively) at a mean follow-up of 22 months. All-cause or cardiac-specific mortality did not differ significantly (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.67-1.27, P = .62; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.54-1.26, P = .37, respectively). In 4 observational studies, including 3065 patients with a mean follow-up of 18.2 months, VT recurrence and mortality were significantly lower as compared to the RCTs (28.6% vs 39%, P < .001; 13.2% vs 18%, P = .01, respectively) despite greater incidence of electrical storm (33.2% vs 17%, P < .001), higher prevalence of nonischemic substrate (46.4% vs 3.6%, P < .001), and lower rate of implanted ICDs (68% vs 94.7%, P < .001).
Conclusion: Meta-analysis of RCT data shows that CA is superior to medical therapy for predominantly postinfarct, scar-related VT in terms of VT recurrence and electrical VT storm, with no reduction in mortality. Real-world observational studies also demonstrate significant reduction in VT recurrence and mortality, despite a sicker cohort, demonstrating replicability and translation of RCT data in the real world.
Keywords: Antiarrhythmic therapy; Catheter ablation; Meta-analysis; Randomized controlled trial; Ventricular tachycardia.
Crown Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.