Key result
Programmed ventricular stimulation using Protocol B induced clinical ventricular tachycardia in 85% of patients compared to 76% with Protocol A, and required fewer countershocks (2% vs 10%).
Why the study?
Does programmed ventricular stimulation Protocol A compared to Protocol B affect the yield of induced ventricular tachycardia and the need for countershock in patients with sustained unimorphic ventricular tachycardia?
Population
101 patients with sustained unimorphic ventricular tachycardia
Comparison
Programmed ventricular stimulation Protocol A vs Programmed ventricular stimulation Protocol B
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
May support Protocol B for VT stimulation; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Observational (n=101)
Does programmed ventricular stimulation Protocol A compared to Protocol B affect the yield of induced ventricular tachycardia and the need for countershock in patients with sustained unimorphic ventricular tachycardia?
Absolute Event Rate: 76% vs 85%
Delaying triple extrastimuli until after single and double extrastimuli at all sites (Protocol B) increases the yield of clinical ventricular tachycardia induction while reducing the risk of inducing polymorphic ventricular tachycardia requiring countershock.
Morady et al. (1984) conducted an observational in sustained unimorphic ventricular tachycardia (n=101). Protocol A (triple extrastimuli at first site) vs. Protocol B (triple extrastimuli after single/double at all sites) was evaluated on Induction of clinical ventricular tachycardia. Programmed ventricular stimulation using Protocol B induced clinical ventricular tachycardia in 85% of patients compared to 76% with Protocol A, and required fewer countershocks (2% vs 10%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: