Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2007 Dec 27;357(26):2657-65.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa065457.

Prophylactic catheter ablation for the prevention of defibrillator therapy

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Prophylactic catheter ablation for the prevention of defibrillator therapy

Vivek Y Reddy et al. N Engl J Med. .

Abstract

Background: For patients who have a ventricular tachyarrhythmic event, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are a mainstay of therapy to prevent sudden death. However, ICD shocks are painful, can result in clinical depression, and do not offer complete protection against death from arrhythmia. We designed this randomized trial to examine whether prophylactic radiofrequency catheter ablation of arrhythmogenic ventricular tissue would reduce the incidence of ICD therapy.

Methods: Eligible patients with a history of a myocardial infarction underwent defibrillator implantation for spontaneous ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. The patients did not receive antiarrhythmic drugs. Patients were randomly assigned to defibrillator implantation alone or defibrillator implantation with adjunctive catheter ablation (64 patients in each group). Ablation was performed with the use of a substrate-based approach in which the myocardial scar is mapped and ablated while the heart remains predominantly in sinus rhythm. The primary end point was survival free from any appropriate ICD therapy.

Results: The mortality rate 30 days after ablation was zero, and there were no significant changes in ventricular function or functional class during the mean (+/-SD) follow-up period of 22.5+/-5.5 months. Twenty-one patients assigned to defibrillator implantation alone (33%) and eight patients assigned to defibrillator implantation plus ablation (12%) received appropriate ICD therapy (antitachycardia pacing or shocks) (hazard ratio in the ablation group, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.15 to 0.78, P=0.007). Among these patients, 20 in the control group (31%) and 6 in the ablation group (9%) received shocks (P=0.003). Mortality was not increased in the group assigned to ablation as compared with the control group (9% vs. 17%, P=0.29).

Conclusions: In this randomized trial, prophylactic substrate-based catheter ablation reduced the incidence of ICD therapy in patients with a history of myocardial infarction who received ICDs for the secondary prevention of sudden death. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN62488166 [controlled-trials.com].).

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier Estimate of the Primary End Point of Survival Free from ICD Therapy
ICD denotes implantable cardioverter–defibrillator.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hazard Ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals for Subsequent ICD Therapy According to Subgroup
The chart shows hazard ratios (black diamonds) with 95% confidence intervals (horizontal lines) and P values for the interaction between the treatment effect and each subgroup variable. Because of the limited number of patients in certain subgroups, wide confidence intervals are noted. The dashed vertical line indicates the hazard ratio for the study entire population. NYHA denotes New York Heart Association, and ICD implantable cardioverter–defibrillator.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Kaplan–Meier Estimates of Secondary End Points
ICD denotes implantable cardioverter–defibrillator.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Effect of Substrate Ablation on Ventricular Function
The left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) at baseline and at 3-month and 12-month follow-up visits are shown for the ablation (blue) and control (red) groups. To assess a preferential negative effect on function in the most severely dysfunctional ventricles, results are also shown for the subgroups with an LVEF of 30% or less and an LVEF of 20% or less. The numbers of patients analyzed (those for whom echocardiographic data were available) are shown above the vertical bars, which indicate the standard deviation.

Comment in

References

    1. Goldberger Z, Lampert R. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: expanding indications and technologies. JAMA. 2006;295:809–18. - PubMed
    1. Sears SE, Jr, Conti JB. Understanding implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks and storms: medical and psychosocial considerations for research and clinical care. Clin Cardiol. 2003;26:107–11. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kamphuis HCM, de Leeuw RJ, Derksen R, Hauer RN, Winnubst JA. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients: quality of life in recipients with and without ICD shock delivery: a prospective study. Europace. 2003;5:381–9. - PubMed
    1. Bilge AK, Ozben B, Demircan S, Cinar M, Yilmaz E, Adalet K. Depression and anxiety status of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator and precipitating factors. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2006;29:619–26. - PubMed
    1. Villacastín J, Almendral J, Arenal A, et al. Incidence and clinical significance of multiple consecutive, appropriate, high-energy discharges in patients with implanted cardioverter-defibrillators. Circulation. 1996;93:753–62. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data