Ibrahim, Ahmed M.

Background: Ventricular tachycardia (VT) is a major contributor to death among ischemic heart disease (IHD) patients. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluate the efficacy of catheter ablation in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis by searching the electronic database up to April 2025. Seven studies, including 1192 patients, were identified. A random-effect model was used to estimate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Trial sequential analysis was conducted to assess sample size adequacy. Results: Among Ischemic heart disease patients with ICDs, VT ablation was associated with a significant reduction in ICD shocks (RR = 0.50, 95% CI [0.34–0.74]), a trend toward reduced VT storm (RR = 0.64, 95% CI [0.40–1.04], p = 0.07), and lower rates of cardiovascular hospitalization (RR = 0.73, 95% CI [0.53–1.01], p = 0.06) compared to ICD alone. However, no significant differences were observed when compared to patients receiving ICD plus antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). Additionally, VT ablation showed no significant impact on mortality or VT/VF recurrence compared to either ICD alone or ICD with AADs. Trial Sequential Analysis provided conclusive evidence for VT/VF recurrence outcomes, while further data are required for other outcomes. Conclusion: Among ischemic heart disease patients with ICD, VT ablation reduces ICD shocks, VT storm, and cardiovascular hospitalizations compared to ICD-only, but offers no significant advantage over ICD combined with antiarrhythmic drugs. VT ablation does not impact mortality or the recurrence of VT/VF. Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed conclusive evidence for VT/VF recurrence, while additional data is needed for other outcomes.

ABSTRACT Background Ventricular tachycardia (VT) is a major contributor to sudden cardiac death among patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD). While catheter ablation reduces the arrhythmic burden, the impact on long‐term outcomes remains uncertain. We assess the efficacy of catheter ablation in patients with IHD. Methods We performed a meta‐analysis by systematically searching electronic databases from inception to April 2025. Pairwise, reconstructed time‐to‐event data meta‐analyses and Trial Sequential analyses were conducted. Results A total of seven studies (1192 participants) were included. Among patients with IHD with ICD, VT ablation was associated with a significant reduction in ICD shocks (RR = 0.50, 95% CI = [0.34–0.74]), a trend toward reduced VT storm (RR = 0.64, 95% CI = [0.40–1.04], p = 0.07), and lower rates of cardiovascular hospitalization (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = [0.53–1.01], p = 0.06) compared to ICD alone. However, no significant differences were observed when compared to patients receiving ICD plus antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). VT ablation showed no significant impact on mortality or VT/VF recurrence compared to either ICD alone or ICD with AADs. Reconstructed Kaplan–Meier analysis for all‐cause mortality showed no significant difference between VT ablation and AAD + ICD. Trial Sequential Analysis provided conclusive evidence for VT/VF recurrence, while further data is required for other outcomes. Conclusion Among patients with IHD with ICD, VT ablation reduces ICD shocks, VT storm, and cardiovascular hospitalizations compared to ICD‐only therapy, but offers no significant advantage over ICD combined with AADs. VT ablation does not impact overall mortality or the recurrence of VT/VF. Trial sequential analysis confirmed conclusive evidence for VT/VF recurrence, while additional data is needed for other outcomes.

Managing persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) remains challenging due to its complex arrhythmic substrate, and pulmonary vein isolation through catheter ablation remains the primary treatment. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with persistent AF to provide evidence-based insights for clinical decision-making. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CBA and RFA in persistent AF were included. Data on efficacy, safety, and procedural outcomes were pooled in the form of odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the random effects model in the Review Manager (RevMan) software. Four RCTs comprising 899 patients were included in our analysis. There were no significant differences between CBA and RFA in terms of AF recurrence, atrial tachycardia/flutter recurrence, or any arrhythmia recurrence during a mean follow-up period of 18 months after ablation. Procedure time was significantly shorter with CBA (MD: −44.85 minutes, 95% CI: −56.46 to −32.24, P < 0.01), while fluoroscopy time was comparable between the 2 groups (MD: 4.31 minutes, 95% CI: −1.79 to 10.40, P = 0.17). Safety outcomes, including overall complications, phrenic nerve palsy, access-site complications, and pericardial effusion, showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. CBA and RFA show similar rates of atrial arrhythmia recurrence and periprocedural complications in the treatment of persistent AF, while CBA offers the advantage of a shorter procedure time.