Key result
Antiarrhythmic regimens deemed effective by programmed stimulation yielded similar 24-month arrhythmia-free survival (72%) compared to regimens effective only by Holter monitoring (75%; P=0.637).
Why the study?
Does antiarrhythmic therapy guided by programmed stimulation efficacy predict better long-term arrhythmia-free survival compared to therapy guided by Holter monitoring efficacy in patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia?
Observational (n=52)
Does antiarrhythmic therapy guided by programmed stimulation efficacy predict better long-term arrhythmia-free survival compared to therapy guided by Holter monitoring efficacy in patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia?
Absolute Event Rate: 72% vs 75%
p-value: p=0.637
Inefficacy of antiarrhythmic drugs on programmed stimulation may not preclude a good clinical outcome if there is a marked reduction of spontaneous ventricular premature complexes on Holter monitoring.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Holter-guided efficacy may suffice despite programmed stimulation failure; leaves open whether stimulation testing improves outcomes in VT.
Kim et al. (1986) conducted an observational in Sustained ventricular tachycardia (n=52). Antiarrhythmic regimen effective by programmed-stimulation criteria vs. Antiarrhythmic regimen effective by Holter monitoring but not programmed stimulation was evaluated on Arrhythmia-free survival at 24 months (p=0.637). Antiarrhythmic regimens deemed effective by programmed stimulation yielded similar 24-month arrhythmia-free survival (72%) compared to regimens effective only by Holter monitoring (75%; P=0.637).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: