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

Background: There 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. Methods: Studies 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). Results: The 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 + 7.31 min, 95% CI (0.91–13.71), p = 0.030] and procedure time [MD + 71.41 min, 95% CI (31.67–111.14), p < 0.001] than N-PVAD. Conclusion: Patients 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.