Ibrahim, Ramzi

Chronic left bundle branch block (LBBB) has been associated with adverse cardiac remodeling and the development of cardiomyopathy. This retrospective cohort study evaluated the impact of angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) therapy on cardiovascular outcomes in adults with isolated LBBB with no known heart failure (HF), cardiomyopathy, or ischemic heart disease. Using the TriNetX global research network, patients were stratified by ARB use and followed for up to 5 years. Propensity score matching was performed to balance characteristics. Three thousand two hundred sixty-six patients were included in each group with comparable baseline characteristics. The ARB therapy was not associated with a reduction in new-onset acute HF events (4.9% vs 4.4%; hazard ratio (HR) 1.05 (95% CI 0.84–1.32)). Similarly, there were no significant differences in rates of all-cause hospitalizations, cardiac arrest, or ventricular tachycardia. However, ARB use was associated with a significantly lower, all-cause mortality rate (8.6% vs 12.1%; HR 0.67 (95% CI 0.57–0.77)). This is the first real-world study examining ARB use in a cohort with isolated LBBB, highlighting a potential mortality benefit, despite no difference in acute HF risk. While ARBs are not effective in preventing LBBB-induced cardiomyopathy based on these findings, the observed survival advantage warrants further investigation. Prospective studies are needed to elucidate mechanisms underlying this mortality benefit and to determine whether ARBs should be considered in the management of patients with isolated LBBB.

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.