Acute post-procedural inducibility is a poor predictor of clinical outcomes in high-risk patients (PAINESD > 17) undergoing scar-related ventricular tachycardia ablation.

Ventricular tachycardia (VT) non-inducibility in response to programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) is a widely used procedural endpoint for VT ablation despite inconclusive evidence with respect to clinical outcomes in high-risk patients. The aim is to determine the utility of acute post-ablation VT inducibility as a predictor of VT recurrence, mortality, or mortality equivalent in high-risk patients. We conducted a retrospective analysis of high-risk patients (defined as PAINESD > 17) who underwent scar-related VT ablation at our institution between July 2010 and July 2022. Patients' response to PVS (post-procedure) was categorized into three groups: Group A, no clinical VT or VT with cycle length > 240 ms inducible; Group B, only non-clinical VT with cycle length > 240 ms induced; and Group C, all other outcomes (including cases where no PVS was performed). The combined primary endpoint included death, durable left ventricular assist device placement, and cardiac transplant (Cox analysis). Ventricular tachycardia recurrence was considered a secondary endpoint (competing risk analysis). Of the 1677 VT ablation cases, 123 cases met the inclusion criteria for analysis. During a 19-month median follow-up time (interquartile range 4-43 months), 82 (66.7%) patients experienced the composite primary endpoint. There was no difference between Groups A and C with respect to the primary [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.21 (0.94-1.57), P = 0.145] or secondary [HR = 1.18 (0.91-1.54), P = 0.210] outcomes. These findings persisted after multivariate adjustments. The size of Group B (n = 13) did not permit meaningful statistical analysis. The results of post-ablation PVS do not significantly correlate with long-term outcomes in high-risk (PAINESD > 17) VT ablation patients.

© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Conflict of interest: T.D.C. has received consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Merit, and Shockwave. A.A.H. has received consulting fees from Abbott and AtriCure and a research grant from Boston Scientific. J.J.R. has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific and a research grant from Abbott. T.T. has received consulting fees from Biosense Webster and Medtronic. O.M.W. and P.S. have both received consulting fees from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. All remaining authors declare that no competing interests exist.