Catheter Ablation or Antiarrhythmic Drugs for Ventricular Tachycardia.

IF 96.2 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
John L Sapp, Anthony S L Tang, Ratika Parkash, William G Stevenson, Jeff S Healey, Lorne J Gula, Girish M Nair, Vidal Essebag, Lena Rivard, Jean-Francois Roux, Pablo B Nery, Jean-Francois Sarrazin, Guy Amit, Jean-Marc Raymond, Marc Deyell, Chris Lane, Frederic Sacher, Christian de Chillou, Vikas Kuriachan, Amir AbdelWahab, Isabelle Nault, Katia Dyrda, Stephen Wilton, Umjeet Jolly, Arvindh Kanagasundram, George A Wells
{"title":"Catheter Ablation or Antiarrhythmic Drugs for Ventricular Tachycardia.","authors":"John L Sapp, Anthony S L Tang, Ratika Parkash, William G Stevenson, Jeff S Healey, Lorne J Gula, Girish M Nair, Vidal Essebag, Lena Rivard, Jean-Francois Roux, Pablo B Nery, Jean-Francois Sarrazin, Guy Amit, Jean-Marc Raymond, Marc Deyell, Chris Lane, Frederic Sacher, Christian de Chillou, Vikas Kuriachan, Amir AbdelWahab, Isabelle Nault, Katia Dyrda, Stephen Wilton, Umjeet Jolly, Arvindh Kanagasundram, George A Wells","doi":"10.1056/NEJMoa2409501","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with ventricular tachycardia and ischemic cardiomyopathy are at high risk for adverse outcomes. Catheter ablation is commonly used when antiarrhythmic drugs do not suppress ventricular tachycardia. Whether catheter ablation is more effective than antiarrhythmic drugs as a first-line therapy in patients with ventricular tachycardia is uncertain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In an international trial, we randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with previous myocardial infarction and clinically significant ventricular tachycardia (defined as ventricular tachycardia storm, receipt of appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator [ICD] shock or antitachycardia pacing, or sustained ventricular tachycardia terminated by emergency treatment) to receive antiarrhythmic drug therapy or to undergo catheter ablation. All the patients had an ICD. Catheter ablation was performed within 14 days after randomization; sotalol or amiodarone was administered as antiarrhythmic drug therapy according to prespecified criteria. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause during follow-up or, more than 14 days after randomization, ventricular tachycardia storm, appropriate ICD shock, or sustained ventricular tachycardia treated by medical intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 416 patients were followed for a median of 4.3 years. A primary end-point event occurred in 103 of 203 patients (50.7%) assigned to catheter ablation and in 129 of 213 (60.6%) assigned to drug therapy (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.97; P = 0.03). Among patients in the catheter ablation group, adverse events within 30 days after the procedure included death in 2 patients (1.0%) and nonfatal adverse events in 23 patients (11.3%). Among the patients assigned to drug therapy, adverse events that were attributed to antiarrhythmic drug treatment included death from pulmonary toxic effects in 1 patient (0.5%) and nonfatal adverse events in 46 patients (21.6%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and ventricular tachycardia, an initial strategy of catheter ablation led to a lower risk of a composite primary end-point event than antiarrhythmic drug therapy. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; VANISH2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02830360.).</p>","PeriodicalId":54725,"journal":{"name":"New England Journal of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":96.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New England Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2409501","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients with ventricular tachycardia and ischemic cardiomyopathy are at high risk for adverse outcomes. Catheter ablation is commonly used when antiarrhythmic drugs do not suppress ventricular tachycardia. Whether catheter ablation is more effective than antiarrhythmic drugs as a first-line therapy in patients with ventricular tachycardia is uncertain.

Methods: In an international trial, we randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with previous myocardial infarction and clinically significant ventricular tachycardia (defined as ventricular tachycardia storm, receipt of appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator [ICD] shock or antitachycardia pacing, or sustained ventricular tachycardia terminated by emergency treatment) to receive antiarrhythmic drug therapy or to undergo catheter ablation. All the patients had an ICD. Catheter ablation was performed within 14 days after randomization; sotalol or amiodarone was administered as antiarrhythmic drug therapy according to prespecified criteria. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause during follow-up or, more than 14 days after randomization, ventricular tachycardia storm, appropriate ICD shock, or sustained ventricular tachycardia treated by medical intervention.

Results: A total of 416 patients were followed for a median of 4.3 years. A primary end-point event occurred in 103 of 203 patients (50.7%) assigned to catheter ablation and in 129 of 213 (60.6%) assigned to drug therapy (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.97; P = 0.03). Among patients in the catheter ablation group, adverse events within 30 days after the procedure included death in 2 patients (1.0%) and nonfatal adverse events in 23 patients (11.3%). Among the patients assigned to drug therapy, adverse events that were attributed to antiarrhythmic drug treatment included death from pulmonary toxic effects in 1 patient (0.5%) and nonfatal adverse events in 46 patients (21.6%).

Conclusions: Among patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and ventricular tachycardia, an initial strategy of catheter ablation led to a lower risk of a composite primary end-point event than antiarrhythmic drug therapy. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; VANISH2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02830360.).

室性心动过速的导管消融或抗心律失常药物。
背景:室性心动过速和缺血性心肌病患者出现不良后果的风险很高。当抗心律失常药物不能抑制室性心动过速时,导管消融术是常用的治疗方法。导管消融作为室性心动过速患者的一线疗法是否比抗心律失常药物更有效尚不确定:在一项国际性试验中,我们以 1:1 的比例随机分配既往患有心肌梗死且有临床症状的室性心动过速患者(定义为室性心动过速风暴、接受适当的植入式心律转复除颤器[ICD]电击或抗心动过速起搏,或经紧急治疗终止持续室性心动过速)接受抗心律失常药物治疗或导管消融治疗。所有患者都配有 ICD。导管消融在随机化后 14 天内进行;索他洛尔或胺碘酮作为抗心律失常药物治疗按照预先规定的标准进行。主要终点是随访期间任何原因导致的死亡或随机化后超过14天的室速风暴、适当的ICD电击或通过医疗干预治疗的持续室速的综合结果:共对 416 名患者进行了中位 4.3 年的随访。在203名接受导管消融术的患者中,有103人(50.7%)发生了主要终点事件;在213名接受药物治疗的患者中,有129人(60.6%)发生了主要终点事件(危险比为0.75;95%置信区间为0.58至0.97;P=0.03)。在导管消融组患者中,术后30天内发生不良事件的患者包括2例死亡(1.0%)和23例非致命不良事件(11.3%)。在接受药物治疗的患者中,因抗心律失常药物治疗引起的不良事件包括1名患者(0.5%)死于肺毒性反应,46名患者(21.6%)发生非致命不良事件:结论:在缺血性心肌病合并室性心动过速患者中,与抗心律失常药物治疗相比,导管消融术的初始策略可降低发生复合主要终点事件的风险。(由加拿大卫生研究院等机构资助;VANISH2 临床试验项目编号:NCT02830360)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
New England Journal of Medicine
New England Journal of Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
145.40
自引率
0.60%
发文量
1839
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) stands as the foremost medical journal and website worldwide. With an impressive history spanning over two centuries, NEJM boasts a consistent publication of superb, peer-reviewed research and engaging clinical content. Our primary objective revolves around delivering high-caliber information and findings at the juncture of biomedical science and clinical practice. We strive to present this knowledge in formats that are not only comprehensible but also hold practical value, effectively influencing healthcare practices and ultimately enhancing patient outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信