Catheter ablation vs. anti-arrhythmic drug therapy for ventricular tachycardia in ischaemic heart disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Ventricular tachycardia (VT) in ischaemic heart disease (IHD) requires complex management strategies including catheter ablation (CA) and anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs). The aim of this study is to compare efficacy and safety of CA vs. AADs in patients with IHD and VT.

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling patients with IHD and ICD randomized to CA or AADs. Primary outcome was appropriate ICD therapy. Secondary outcomes included inappropriate ICD therapy, cardiovascular (CV) re-hospitalization, all-cause/CV mortality, and adverse events. Subgroup analyses were conducted for amiodarone and sotalol, with an exploratory evaluation of a composite endpoint (ICD shock, VT storm, all-cause death). Four RCTs including 947 patients (mean age 68 ± 2 years; 93% male) were analysed. CA significantly reduced the risk of appropriate ICD therapy compared with AADs (149/470 [31.7%] vs. 229/477 [48.0%]; RR 0.81; 95% CI [0.67, 0.97]; P = 0.02). Among secondary outcomes, CA decreased the incidence of CV re-hospitalization [RR 0.84; 95% CI (0.72, 0.99); P = 0.04] and adverse events [RR 0.42; 95% CI (0.28, 0.62); P < 0.01], while no differences were observed in all-cause/CV mortality and inappropriate ICD therapy. In subgroup analyses, CA was superior to sotalol in reducing the composite endpoint of ICD shock, VT storm and all-cause death [RR: 0.82, 95% CI (0.69, 0.98), P = 0.03]; whereas, no significant benefit was seen compared to amiodarone [RR: 0.92; 95% CI (0.78, 1.09), P = 0.32].

In ischaemic heart disease and VT, CA compared with anti-arrhythmic drugs is associated with a reduction of appropriate ICD therapy, cardiovascular re-hospitalization, and adverse events with benefits most evident versus sotalol.