Effectiveness and Safety of Intramyocardial Needle Ablation for Refractory Ventricular Tachycardia and Premature Ventricular Complexes: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction Intramyocardial needle ablation is a novel technique for treating refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT) and premature ventricular complexes (PVC). However, studies defining the effectiveness and safety of this procedure are limited. This meta‐analysis aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of needle ablation for VT and PVC refractory to standard ablation. Methods Embase, Ovid (includes Medline), and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to December 31, 2024. Human studies on needle ablation for recurrent VT and PVC were included. Primary outcome was immediate effectiveness (no immediate post‐procedural inducible VT or PVC). Secondary outcomes were long‐term effectiveness (no clinical VT or PVC at 6 months) and safety (composite measure of peri‐ and post‐procedural complications). Results A total of five studies including 180 patients (140 VT; 40 PVC) were analyzed. Mean ages ranged from 54 to 66 years. Among 129 patients with VT, immediate effectiveness was 75% (95% CI, 54–92; I2 80%), and cumulative freedom from clinical VT dropped to 43% at 6 months (95% CI, 35–52; I2 0%). Among 40 patients with PVC, immediate effectiveness was 82% (95% CI, 67–94; I2 0%), and long‐term effectiveness was 76% (95% CI, 61–90; I2 0%). Safety outcomes were reported in 19% of patients (95% CI, 13–27; I2 0%) and 10% of patients (95% CI 1, 23; I2 0%) in the VT and PVC arm, respectively. Death related to ablation was report in 7 patients (5.0%) only in the VT studies. Conclusion Intramyocardial needle ablation is an emerging alternative approach for refractory VT and PVC ablation, showing cautious but promising results and safety profiles. Prospective studies and an international registry could provide valuable insights needed for optimal patient selection and protocol refinement.
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 | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".