Why the study?
Does endocardial detection using a single right-ventricular lead accurately measure repolarization alternans compared to surface electrocardiograms in patients undergoing electrophysiological testing?
Does endocardial detection using a single right-ventricular lead accurately measure repolarization alternans compared to surface electrocardiograms in patients undergoing electrophysiological testing?
Endocardial detection of repolarization alternans using a single right-ventricular lead is feasible and shows 71% concordance with surface T-wave alternans, suggesting potential utility for implantable cardiac devices.
Single RV lead endocardial RPA detection is feasible; hypothesis-generating for device integration and needs prospective validation.
Repolarization alternans (RPA) is prognostic of sudden cardiac death and is thought to be mechanistically linked to the initiation of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Thus, implantable cardiac device detection of RPA may be therapeutically valuable. Because alternans detection is currently limited to surface electrocardiograms, we investigated whether RPA could be measured using a single right-ventricular endocardial lead in humans. Such a location was chosen because it is consistent with the requirements for long-term implantable-device implementation. During diagnostic electrophysiological testing, 28 patients (23 male, 5 female; 61 +/- 15 years) were evaluated for surface T-wave alternans (TWA; the current "gold standard" for RPA detection) and endocardial RPA during 5 min of 550-ms right-atrial pacing. Power spectral analysis indicated that 11/28 patients had both surface TWA and endocardial RPA, 9/28 patients had neither, and 8/28 patients had discordant results (71% concordance; p = 0.02). Importantly, unlike surface TWA, endocardial RPA was detectable on a beat-to-beat basis. Given the putative mechanistic link between RPA and ventricular arrhythmias, beat-to-beat endocardial RPA detection might be of diagnostic or therapeutic utility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Christini et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: