Why the study?
Does an anatomical approach compared to a local-activation-time guided approach improve acute success and reduce long-term recurrence in patients undergoing ablation for PVCs originating from the cardiac base?
Population
48 patients with symptomatic, high-burden premature ventricular complexes originating from the…
Comparison
Anatomical approach (AA) for catheter ablation vs Local-activation-time-guided catheter ablation
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
median 107 days (IQR 65–343 days)
Key result
Anatomical ablation for PVCs from the cardiac base had lower acute success (71% vs 100%, p=0.019) and higher long-term recurrence (54% vs 32%, p=0.21) compared to LAT-guided ablation.
Authors
Loading...
LAT-guided ablation may improve acute success for basal PVCs; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized trials before practice change.
Cohort (n=48)
No
Does an anatomical approach compared to a local-activation-time guided approach improve acute success and reduce long-term recurrence in patients undergoing ablation for PVCs originating from the cardiac base?
Absolute Event Rate: 71% vs 100%
p-value: p=0.019
Anatomical ablation for basal PVCs is feasible and reduces PVC burden, but is associated with lower acute success and potentially worse long-term outcomes compared to LAT-guided ablation.
Tsianakas et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Symptomatic, high-burden premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) (n=48). Anatomical approach (AA) for catheter ablation vs. Local-activation-time (LAT)-guided ablation was evaluated on Acute success (p=0.019). Anatomical ablation for PVCs from the cardiac base had lower acute success (71% vs 100%, p=0.019) and higher long-term recurrence (54% vs 32%, p=0.21) compared to LAT-guided ablation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: