Meta‐analysis comparing outcomes of catheter ablation for ventricular arrhythmia in ischemic versus nonischemic cardiomyopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation is an effective treatment for ventricular arrhythmia (VA) in ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). However, results in non-ICM (NICM) patients are not satisfactory, and studies comparing differences between NICM and ICM are limited. We conducted a meta-analysis of procedural characteristics and long-term outcomes of catheter ablation for VA, comparing results between ICM and NICM. METHODS: Studies in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed. Four studies reporting comparison of catheter ablation of VA between ICM and NICM were examined. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to appraise study quality. A random-effects model with inverse variance method was used for comparisons. RESULTS: Epicardial approach was significantly more undertaken for the NICM group than in the ICM group (odds ratio [OR]: 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.09-0.18; P < .00001). Mean ablation time (P = .54), fluoroscopy time (P = .55), and procedural time (P = .18) did not differ significantly between the ICM and NICM groups. Procedural failure rates (OR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.24-0.89; P = .02) and VA recurrence rates (risk ratio [RR]: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.46-1.01; P = .06) were significantly higher in the NICM group than in the ICM group. However, all-cause mortality (RR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.75-2.49; P = .31) did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Procedural failure and VA recurrence rates were significantly higher in the NICM group, despite significantly more frequent epicardial access. These highlight the limitations of catheter ablation for VA in NICM, given our current knowledge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.063 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".