Trial reportEuropean heart journal2026
Computed tomography-guided vs conventional catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia: the InEurHeart trial.
Trial report in European heart journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05225935 (Computed Tomography-Guided Catheter Ablation for Ventricular Tachycardia), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Computed Tomography-Guided Catheter Ablation for Ventricular Tachycardia (InEurHeart Study)
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accounting for uncertainty in computational models of ventricular tachycardia improves ablation guidance.Nature cardiovascular research · 2026Article
- Imaging-Guided Versus Conventional Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
35 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsCatheter ablation is performed in patients with recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) but remains complex and limited to experienced centres. Ventricular tachycardia ablation guided by pre-procedural imaging was shown promising in non-randomized trials. InEurHeart aims to evaluate computed tomography (CT)-guided VT ablation vs conventional ablation in a multicentre randomized controlled trial.
methodsIn 14 European centres, 113 patients with prior myocardial infarction and clinically significant VT were randomly assigned to CT-guided (n = 57) or conventional (n = 56) VT ablation. The primary objective was to demonstrate reduced procedural duration when using CT guidance. Secondary endpoints included efficacy (incidence and burden of ventricular arrhythmia), safety, as well as composite endpoints.
resultsThe primary endpoint showed a significant decrease in procedure time favouring CT-guided ablation: 149 ± 51 to 120 ± 50 min, -19% [95% confidence interval (CI) -32; -7]; P = .0027 in intention to treat, and 149 ± 51 to 107 ± 38 min, -28% (95% CI -40; -16); P < .0001 per protocol. Major adverse events occurred in two (3.5%) in the conventional group vs one (1.8%) in the CT-guided group [-1.8% (95% CI -7.9; 4.3)]. Ventricular tachycardia-free survival at 1 year was achieved in 37 (67.3%) patients for conventional vs 43 (76.8%) for CT-guided VT ablation [9.5% (95% CI -10.4; 29.4), P = NS]. Ventricular tachycardia burden was decreased by 90% in the CT-guided group.
conclusionsIn patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy, CT-guided VT ablation reduces the procedure duration while maintaining a favourable efficacy and safety profile when compared with VT ablation without image integration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.