Abstract Aims Catheter ablation is an effective treatment for post-infarction ventricular tachycardia (VT). However, some patients may experience a worsened arrhythmia phenotype after ablation. We aimed to determine the prevalence and prognostic impact of arrhythmia exacerbation (AE) after post-infarction VT ablation. Methods and results A total of 1187 consecutive patients (93% men, median age 68 years, median ejection fraction 30%) who underwent post-infarction VT ablation at six centres were included. Arrhythmia exacerbation was defined as post-ablation VT storm or incessant VT in patients without prior similar events. During follow-up (median 717 days), 426 (36%) patients experienced VT recurrence. Events qualifying as AE occurred in 67 patients (6%). Median times to VT recurrence with and without AE were 238 [interquartile range (IQR) 35–640] days and 135 (IQR 22–521) days, respectively (P = 0.25). Almost half of the patients (46%) who experienced AE experienced it within 6 months of the index procedure. Patients with AE had had longer ablation times during the ablation procedures compared to the rest of the patients (median 42 vs. 34 min, P = 0.02). Among patients with VT recurrence, the risk of death or heart transplantation was significantly higher in patients with than without AE (hazard ratio 1.99, 95% CI 1.28–3.10; P = 0.002) after adjusting for age, gender, ejection fraction, cardiac resynchronization therapy, post-ablation non-inducibility, and post-ablation amiodarone use. Conclusion Arrhythmia exacerbation after ablation of infarct-related VT is infrequent but is independently associated with an adverse long-term outcome among patients who experience a VT recurrence. The mechanisms and mitigation strategies of AE after catheter ablation require further investigation.
Effect of public deliberation on attitudes toward surrogate consent for dementia research
BackgroundResearch involving incapacitated persons with dementia entails complex scientific, legal, and ethical issues, making traditional surveys of layperson views on the ethics of such research challenging. We therefore assessed the impact of democratic deliberation (DD), involving balanced, detailed education and peer deliberation, on the views of those responsible for persons with dementia.MethodsOne hundred and seventy‐eight community‐recruited caregivers or primary decision‐makers for persons with dementia were randomly assigned to either an all‐day DD session group or a control group. Educational materials used for the DD session were vetted for balance and accuracy by an interdisciplinary advisory panel. We assessed the acceptability of family‐surrogate consent for dementia research (“surrogate‐based research”) from a societal policy perspective as well as from the more personal perspectives of deciding for a loved one or for oneself (surrogate and self‐perspectives), assessed at baseline, immediately post‐DD session, and 1 month after DD date, for four research scenarios of varying risk‐benefit profiles.ResultsAt baseline, a majority in both the DD and control groups supported a policy of family consent for dementia research in all research scenarios. The support for a policy of family consent for surrogate‐based research increased in the DD group, but not in the control group. The change in the DD group was maintained 1 month later. In the DD group, there were transient changes in attitudes from surrogate or self‐perspectives. In the control group, there were no changes from baseline in attitude toward surrogate consent from any perspective.ConclusionsIntensive, balanced, and accurate education, along with peer deliberation provided by democratic deliberation, led to a sustained increase in support for a societal policy of family consent in dementia research among those responsible for dementia patients.