Key result
Burst antitachycardia pacing was significantly more efficacious than ramp pacing in terminating fast ventricular tachycardia episodes (75.2% vs 54.3%; P=0.015).
Why the study?
Does burst antitachycardia pacing improve termination of fast ventricular tachycardias compared to ramp pacing in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators?
RCT (n=206)
Randomized
Does burst antitachycardia pacing improve termination of fast ventricular tachycardias compared to ramp pacing in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators?
Burst ATP is significantly more effective than ramp ATP for terminating fast ventricular tachycardias in ICD patients, with a similarly low risk of adverse events.
ATP effective for FVT termination in ICDs; leaves open optimal burst versus ramp programming.
BACKGROUND: In patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), antitachycardia pacing (ATP) is highly effective in terminating fast ventricular tachycardias (FVTs) and lowers the use of high-energy shocks, without increasing the risk of arrhythmia acceleration or syncope. METHODS AND RESULTS: The aim of the PITAGORA ICD trial was to randomly compare 2 ATP strategies (88% coupling interval burst versus 91% coupling interval ramp, both 8 pulses) in terms of ATP efficacy, arrhythmia acceleration, and syncope. Two hundred six ICD patients (83% male, 67+/-11 years) were enrolled. FVT episodes with cycle lengths between 240 and 320 ms were treated by 1 ATP sequence and, in the event of failure, by shocks. Over a median follow-up of 36 months, 829 spontaneous ventricular tachyarrhythmia episodes were detected in 79 patients. Episode review identified 595 episodes as true ventricular arrhythmias in 72 patients; devices classified 111 (18.7%) episodes as VF, 216 (36.3%) as FVT, and 268 (45.0%) as VT. Fifty-six patients had 214 treated FVT episodes-2 FVTs self-terminated before ATP release; 44 (79%) of these had at least 1 effective ATP intervention, and 34 (61%) were spared ICD shocks. Burst terminated 100 of 133 (75.2%) FVT episodes, whereas ramp terminated 44 of 81 (54.3%; P=0.015). Acceleration occurred in 9 of 214 (4.2%) FVT episodes treated: 6 episodes in 3 ramp patients and 3 episodes in 3 burst patients. Two patients-1 in each group-suffered 1 syncopal event associated to a nonterminated FVT episode. CONCLUSIONS: Burst is significantly more efficacious than ramp in terminating FVT episodes. As the first therapy for FVT episodes, ATP carries a low risk of acceleration or syncopal events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gulizia et al. (2009) conducted an RCT in Fast ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (n=206). Burst antitachycardia pacing (88% coupling interval) vs. Ramp antitachycardia pacing (91% coupling interval, 8 pulses) was evaluated on Termination of fast ventricular tachycardia episodes (p=0.015). Burst antitachycardia pacing was significantly more efficacious than ramp pacing in terminating fast ventricular tachycardia episodes (75.2% vs 54.3%; P=0.015).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: