Percutaneous ventricular assist device in ventricular tachycardia ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThere is a lack of compelling data regarding the benefit of percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVAD) in patients undergoing ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation. The study aims to conduct a meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of PVAD versus no-PVAD (N-PVAD) during VT ablation.MethodsStudies meeting criteria were systematically reviewed. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were extracted and analyzed. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects model to calculate risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsThe meta-analysis included five retrospective, observational studies consisting of 2026 patients (PVAD group-284 patients versus N-PVAD group-1742 patients). The PVAD group was sicker with significantly higher VT storm, lower LVEF and greater proportion of NYHA class >= III than N-PVAD (p<0.050). The acute procedural success [RR 0.95, 95% CI, (0.89-1.00), p=0.070], VT recurrence [RR 0.94, 95% CI, (0.66-1.34), p=0.740] and mortality [RR 1.28, 95% CI, (0.43-3.83), p=0.660] were similar on follow-up between PVAD versus N-PVAD. PVAD group also had significantly higher complications [RR 1.83, 95% CI (1.21-2.76), p=0.004] and longer fluoroscopy [MD +7.31min, 95% CI (0.91-13.71), p=0.030] and procedure time [MD +71.41min, 95% CI (31.67-111.14), p<0.001] than N-PVAD.ConclusionPatients receiving PVAD support during VT ablation were sicker with no significant difference in acute procedural success, VT recurrence, and mortality compared with N-PVAD. PVAD support was also associated with higher complications and longer fluoroscopy and procedure time. A prospective randomized controlled trial will identify if using PVAD support in unstable patients undergoing VT ablation will impact clinical outcomes.