Mexiletine for recurrent ventricular tachycardia in adult patients with structural heart disease and implantable cardioverter defibrillator: an EHRA systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to systematically review evidence on the effectiveness and safety of oral mexiletine administered in monotherapy or in combination with other antiarrhythmic drugs for recurrent ventricular arrhythmia (ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, VT/VF) in adult patients with structural heart disease (SHD) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases from inception to 27 August 2021 for prospective and retrospective studies investigating mexiletine in the target population. The main outcome was the reduction of ICD therapy. The main safety outcome was the presence of any serious adverse events (SAEs) leading to mexiletine discontinuation. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Four studies comprising 86 mexiletine recipients were included in the review. We also obtained individual data of 50 patients from two studies. Ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) was present in 86% of patients. The quality of included studies was moderate/low. A narrative review was undertaken as studies varied widely in terms of study population and treatment. Across studies, mexiletine treatment (with or without amiodarone) seemed to consistently reduce the number of ICD therapies especially in a population where catheter ablation (CA) was unsuccessful or contraindicated. In ICM patients deemed eligible for CA, mexiletine seemed to be inferior to CA. Mexiletine was discontinued in 14% of cases, mainly for gastrointestinal or neurological SAE. Mexiletine seems to be an option for the long-term treatment of recurrent VT/VF in adult patients with SHD, especially ICM, and ICD in whom CA was unsuccessful or not suitable.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".