Why the study?
Does fast rate (≥ 250 beats/min) right ventricular burst stimulation improve ventricular tachycardia induction in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy?
Does fast rate (≥ 250 beats/min) right ventricular burst stimulation improve ventricular tachycardia induction in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy?
Fast rate right ventricular burst stimulation (≥ 250 beats/min) is an effective supplemental method for inducing ventricular tachycardia during electrophysiological studies in patients with ARVC.
Fast-rate burst pacing may enhance VT induction in ARVC EP studies; hypothesis-generating for protocol standardization.
BACKGROUND: One of the major challenges in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) ablation is ventricular tachycardia (VT) non-inducibility. The study aimed to assess whether fast rate (≥ 250 beats/min) right ventricular burst stimulation was useful for VT induction in patients with ARVC. METHODS: Ninety-one consecutive ARVC patients with clinical sustained VT that underwent electrophysiological study were enrolled. The stimulation protocol was implemented at both right ventricular apex and outflow tract as follows: Step A, up to double extra-stimuli; Step B, incremental stimulation with low rate (< 250 beats/min); Step C, burst stimulation with fast rate (≥ 250 beats/min); Step D, repeated all steps above with intravenous infusion of isoproterenol. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients had inducible VT (83.5%), among which 49 were induced by Step C, 15 were induced by Step B, 8 and 4 by Step A and D, respectively. Clinical VTs were induced in 60 patients (65.9%). Only two spontaneously ceased ventricular fibrillations were induced by Step C. Multivariate analysis showed that a narrower baseline QRS duration under sinus rhythm was independently associated with VT non-inducibility (OR: 1.1; 95% CI: 1.0-1.1; P = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Fast rate (≥ 250 beats/min) right ventricular burst stimulation provides a useful supplemental method for VT induction in ARVC patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: