Comparison of burst versus ramp antitachycardia pacing therapy for ventricular tachycardia: A meta‐analysis. (28th January 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: de Sousa, Marcos R.; Cota, Gláucia F.; Burger, Achim L.; Pezawas, Thomas
• Is Part Of: Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology. Volume 32:Number 3(2021)
• Page Start: 842
• Page End: 850
• Publication Date: 2021-01-28
• Subjects: antitachycardia pacing therapy -- implantable defibrillators -- meta‐analysis -- ventricular tachycardia; Blood vessels -- Physiology -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Physiology -- Periodicals; 612.1
• DOI: 10.1111/jce.14908
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1045-3873

Abstract

Abstract: Current guidelines recommend at least one attempt of defibrillator antitachycardia pacing (ATP) therapy, showing preference for burst therapy. The objective of this study is to compare ramp versus burst ATP therapy proportion of success and acceleration in treating spontaneous or induced ventricular tachycardia (VT). The review protocol was previously published in PROSPERO. Data synthesis and measures of heterogeneity ( I 2 ) was performed by CMA® software v.3 comparing proportions in both groups. Sensitivity analysis was performed as subgroup or meta‐regression according to quality, clinical characteristics, and differences in design. Thirteen studies including 30, 117 VT episodes in 1672 patients were analyzed. There was no significant difference in the proportion of success between burst and ramp therapy in spontaneous VT (odds ratio = 1.116; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.788–1.579; I 2 = 89%). There was no significant difference in the proportion of success between burst and ramp therapy in induced VT (odds ratio = 0.820; 95% CI = 0.468–1.437; I 2 = 93%). No significant difference was found in the proportion of acceleration between burst and ramp in spontaneous VT (odds ratio = 0.792; 95% CI = 0.476–1.317; I 2 = 83%). No significant difference was found in the proportion of acceleration between burst and ramp in induced VT (odds ratio = 1.234; 95% CI = 0.802–1.898; I 2 = 55%). Sensitivity analysis did not change main results. There is no difference in success or in acceleration proportion between burst or ramp ATP therapy irrespective if the VT was spontaneous or induced. Future implantable cardioverter defibrillator programming guidelines should offer both ATP therapies without preference in one of them.