Abstract Background and aims Bayesian analyses can provide additional insights into the results of clinical trials, aiding in the decision-making process. We analysed the Substrate Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Symptomatic Ventricular Tachycardia (SURVIVE-VT) trial using Bayesian survival models. Methods and results The SURVIVE-VT trial randomized patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) to catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) as a first-line strategy. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, appropriate implantable cardioverter–defibrillator shocks, unplanned heart failure hospitalizations, or severe treatment-related complications. We used informative, skeptical, and non-informative priors with different probabilities of large effects to compute the posterior distributions using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods. We calculated the probabilities of hazard ratios (HR) being <1, <0.9, and <0.75, as well as 2-year survival estimates. Of the 144 randomized patients, 71 underwent catheter ablation and 73 received AAD. Regardless of the prior, catheter ablation had a >98% probability of reducing the primary outcome (HR < 1) and a >96% probability of achieving a reduction of >10% (HR < 0.9). The probability of a >25% (HR < 0.75) reduction of treatment-related complications was >90%. Catheter ablation had a high probability (>93%) of reducing incessant/slow undetected VT/electric storm, unplanned hospitalizations for ventricular arrhythmias, and overall cardiovascular admissions > 25%, with absolute differences of 15.2%, 21.2%, and 20.2%, respectively. Conclusion In patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and VT, catheter ablation as a first-line therapy resulted in a high probability of reducing several clinical outcomes compared to AAD. Our study highlights the value of Bayesian analysis in clinical trials and its potential for guiding treatment decisions. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03734562