Arrhythmias & electrophysiologyRandomised controlled trial
Computed tomography-guided vs conventional catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia: the InEurHeart trial
- Randomised controlled trial
- multicentre
Authors' conclusion
In 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.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with prior MI and clinically significant ventricular tachycardia (VT), 14 European centres
- Participants
- 113 patients
- Comparison
- Computed tomography (CT)-guided vs conventional VT ablation
- CT-guidedn = 57
- Conventionaln = 56reference
- Primary endpoint
- Procedure duration
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Procedure time
CT-guided vs ConventionalDifference, % (95% CI)P value
ITT
−19(−32 to −7)
P = 0.0027per protocol (149 ± 51 to 107 ± 38 min)
−28(−40 to −16)
P < 0.0001Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | CT-guided | Conventional | difference (%) (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VT-free survival · 1 year | 76.8% | 67.3% | 9.5 (−10.4 to 29.4) | P = NS | |
| −2002040Difference, % (linear scale) |
VT burden
- VT burden decreased in CT-guided
- 90%
Safety
| Outcome | CT-guided | Conventional | difference (%) (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major adverse events | 1.8% | 3.5% | −1.8 (−7.9 to 4.3) | |
| −10−505Difference, % (linear scale) |
Original publication
Computed tomography-guided vs conventional catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia: the InEurHeart trial. Eur Heart J. Published 11 February 2026. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehag052
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it