Catheter ablation enough in Post-MI patients with more than 35% LVEF and who tolerated ventricular tachycardias: Study
RPGMC-Tanda’s Road to PGIMER
A new study published in the JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology journal showed that when acute procedural success is attained in a subset of patients with ventricular tachycardia (VT) and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) higher than 35% following myocardial infarction, catheter ablation alone could be enough.
Post–myocardial infarction (MI) individuals with ventricular tachycardia are regarded at risk for VT recurrence and sudden cardiac death (SCD). For more than 20 years, implanted cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have been advised for the prevention of SCD in patients with hemodynamically tolerated sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (SMVT), irrespective of the left ventricular ejection fraction.
According to recent guidelines, catheter ablation should be explored as an alternative to an implanted cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in some individuals. This study was to examine the results of patients who were referred for VT ablation based on acute ablation outcome, left ventricular ejection fraction, and VT tolerance.
Post-MI patients without a history of ICD who had VT ablation at a single facility between 2009 and 2022 were included in this research. Catheter ablation was recommended as first-line treatment for patients with tolerable VT and an LVEF greater than 35%. All patients were given the option of ICD implantation, however the choice was made jointly based on the patient's clinical presentation, LVEF, and ablation results.
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.