Back to Index

  • VANISH Original
  • VANISH

    "Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation versus Escalation of Antiarrhythmic Drugs".The New England Journal of Medicine. 2016. 375(2):111-121.PubMed•Full text•PDF

    Clinical Question


    Among patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) with ventricular tachycardia despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy, is catheter ablation more effective than escalated antiarrhythmic drug therapy in reducing the rate of death, ventricular tachycardia storm, or appropriate ICD shock?

    Bottom Line


    Catheter ablation was more effective than escalated antiarrhythmic drug therapy in reducing the composite outcome of death, ventricular tachycardia storm, or appropriate ICD shock among patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy who have ventricular tachycardia despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy.

    Major Points




    Guidelines


    Current guidelines recommend catheter ablation when antiarrhythmic drug therapy does not prevent recurrent ventricular tachycardia, although this recommendation has been based on expert opinion and nonrandomized case series. This trial provides evidence for preferring catheter ablation over escalated antiarrhythmic drug therapy to reduce recurrent ventricular tachycardia in this population.

    Design


    Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.

    Population


    259 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an ICD with ventricular tachycardia despite antiarrhythmic drugs.

    Interventions


    Patients were randomized to either catheter ablation (n=132) or escalated antiarrhythmic drug therapy (n=127).

    Outcomes


    Composite outcome of death at any time, ventricular tachycardia storm, or appropriate ICD shock.
    Primary outcome occurred in 59.1% of the ablation group vs. 68.5% of the escalated-therapy group (HR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.98; P=0.04). No significant differences in mortality.

    Criticisms


    The trial was not powered to assess the effects of treatments on mortality and was conducted at experienced centers, limiting generalizability.

    Funding


    Canadian Institutes of Health Research with additional financial support from St. Jude Medical and Biosense Webster.

    Further Reading


    Key articles and guidelines for those interested in further information.