Table 1.
Baseline characteristics of ARVC patients undergoing catheter ablation.
| Study | Region | Design | Size, n | Age, yrs | Males, n | LVEF | With an ICD | AAD before ablation | VT induci-bility |
| Data are presented as mean ± SD or n (%). AAD: anti-arrhythmic drugs; ICD: implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; NR: not reported; VT: ventricular tachycardia; *study included both endocardial-only ablation and epicardial ± endocardial ablation patients. | |||||||||
| Epicardial ± endocardial ablation | |||||||||
| Aras 2019 [16] | Turkey | Prospective, single center | 11 | 36.6 ± 6.8 | 6 (54.5%) | 56.5 ± 5.3 | 11 (100%) | 11 (100%) | 11 (100%) |
| Laredo 2019*[17] | France | Retrospective, multicenter | 4 | 51.5 ± 27.0 | 4 (100.0%) | 49.5 ± 22.3 | 3 (75.0%) | 4 (100%) | 4 (100%) |
| Mathew 2019*[18] | Germany | Retrospective, single center | 21 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Santangeli 2019*[19] | USA et al. | Prospective, multicenter | 23 | 46.5 ± 13.6 | 19 (82.6%) | 60.3 ± 7.4 | 0 | 18 (78.3%) | 22 (95.7%) |
| Souissi 2018*[20] | France | Retrospective, multicenter | 9 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 9 (100%) | NR |
| Berruezo 2017[7] | Spain | Prospective, multicenter | 34 | 40.8 ± 13.1 | 29 (85.3%) | 52.3 ± 12.1 | 34 (100%) | 27 (65.8%) | NR |
| Müssigbrodt 2017*[9] | Germany | Retrospective, single center | 22 | 51.7 ± 13.3 | 17 (77.3%) | 58 ± 7 | 22 (100%) | 22 (100%) | NR |
| Wei 2017*[6] | China | Retrospective, single center | 17 | 40.5 ± 11.5 | 13 (76.5%) | NR | 4 (23.5%) | NR | NR |
| Berte 2016*[21] | France et al. | Retrospective, multicenter | 4 | NR | NR | NR | 4 (100%) | 4 (100%) | 4 (100%) |
| Philips 2015[22] | USA | Retrospective, single center | 30 | 33.1 ± 11.1 | 16 (53.3%) | NR | NR | NR | 28 (93.3%) |
| Santangeli 2015*[8] | USA | Retrospective, single center | 39 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Philips 2012*[23] | USA | Retrospective, multicenter | 23 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Bai 2011*[24] | USA et al. | Prospective, multicenter | 26 | 37 ± 11 | 18 (69.2%) | 53 ± 10 | 26 (100%) | 26 (100%) | 26 (100%) |
| Schmidt 2010[25] | Germany | Prospective, single center | 13 | 43 ± 18 | 10 (76.9%) | 55 ± 8 | 7 (53.9%) | NR | 12 (92.3%) |
| Garcia 2009[26] | Spain | Retrospective, single center | 13 | 43 ± 15 | 10 (76.9%) | NR | 12 (92.3%) | 13 (100%) | 13 (92.3%) |
| Summary | - | 5 Prospective studies; 10 Retrospective studies |
289 | - | 142/193 (73.6%) | - | 123/167 (73.7%) | 134/146 (91.8%) | 120/124 (96.8%) |
| Endocardial-only ablation | |||||||||
| Laredo 2019*[17] | France | Retrospective, multicenter | 19 | 41.9 ± 14.2 | 19 (100%) | 56 ± 6.9 | 16 (84.2%) | 18 (94.7%) | 17 (89.5%) |
| Mathew 2019*[18] | Germany | Retrospective, single center | 26 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Santangeli 2019*[19] | USA et al. | Prospective, multicenter | 9 | 39.8 ± 11.0 | 4 (44.4%) | 61.9 ± 4.0 | 0 | 4 (44.4%) | 9 (100%) |
| Souissi 2018*[20] | France | Retrospective, multicenter | 40 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 40 (100%) | NR |
| Müssigbrodt 2017*[9] | Germany | Retrospective, single center | 23 | 54.9 ± 15.1 | 13 (56.5%) | 54 ± 10 | 23 (100%) | 23 (100%) | NR |
| Wei 2017*[6] | China | Retrospective, single center | 31 | 39.8 ± 13.9 | 20 (64.5%) | NR | 7 (22.6%) | NR | NR |
| Berte 2016*[21] | France et al. | Retrospective, multicenter | 3 | NR | NR | NR | 3 (100%) | 3 (100%) | 3 (100%) |
| Santangeli 2015*[8] | USA | Retrospective, single center | 23 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Hrosˇova' 2012[27] | Czech | Retrospective, single center | 9 | 40 ± 17 | 8 (88.9%) | 56.7 ± 10.6 | 2 (22.2%) | 3 (33.3%) | 9 (100%) |
| Philips 2012*[23] | USA | Retrospective, multicenter | 64 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Bai 2011*[24] | USA et al. | Prospective, multicenter | 23 | 34 ± 14 | 15 (65.2%) | 57 ± 7 | 23 (100%) | 23 (100%) | 23 (100%) |
| Nair 2011[28] | India | Prospective, single center | 15 | 44 ± 15 | 12 (80.0%) | NR | 2 (13.3%) | 15 (100%) | 15 (100%) |
| Nogami 2008[29] | Japan | Retrospective, single center | 18 | 48 ± 11 | 13 (72.2%) | NR | 2 (11.1%) | 12 (66.7%) | 18 (100%) |
| Dalal 2007[30] | USA | Retrospective, multicenter | 24 | 36 ± 9 | 11 (45.8%) | NR | 5 (20.8%) | 15 (62.5%) | 24 (100%) |
| Yao 2007[4] | China | Retrospective, single center | 32 | 37.2 ± 12.8 | 26 (81.3%) | 55 ± 10 | 2 (6.3%) | 32 (100%) | NR |
| Satomi 2006[31] | Japan | Prospective, single center | 17 | 47 ± 17 | 13 (76.5%) | NR | 0 | 15 (88.2%) | 17 (100%) |
| Miljoen 2005[32] | France | Retrospective, single center | 11 | 50 ± 17 | 8 (72.7%) | 54 ± 9 | 4 (36.4%) | 11 (100%) | 11 (100%) |
| Verma 2005[33] | USA | Retrospective, single center | 22 | 41 ± 15 | 15 (68.2%) | 55 ± 8 | 18 (81.8%) | 22 (100%) | 22 (100%) |
| Marchlinski 2004[34] | USA | Retrospective, single center | 19 | 47 ± 18 | 18 (94.7%) | NR | 14 (73.7%) | NR | 19 (100%) |
| Summary | - | 4 Prospective studies; 15 Retrospective studies |
428 | - | 195/272 (71.7%) | - | 121/275 (44.0%) | 236/265 (89.1%) | 187/189 (98.9%) |