Why the study?
Does the induction of nonclinical ventricular tachycardia during electrophysiological testing in patients with Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome correlate with different electrophysiological properties or adverse clinical outcomes?
Does the induction of nonclinical ventricular tachycardia during electrophysiological testing in patients with Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome correlate with different electrophysiological properties or adverse clinical outcomes?
Induction of nonclinical ventricular tachycardia during electrophysiological testing in WPW patients without structural heart disease does not indicate different accessory pathway properties or a worse clinical prognosis.
Induction of nonclinical VT in WPW should not alter risk assessment; this Level 3 finding leaves open its prognostic value in larger cohorts.
Between September 1980 and June 1984 we assessed the specificity of induction of ventricular tachycardia (VT) with one or two ventricular extrastimuli in a consecutive series of 148 patients undergoing electrophysiological assessment for the Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) syndrome by standard electrophysiological techniques. Fifteen patients (10%) had six or more beats of VT induced by one ventricular extrastimulus after a ventricular drive (9 patients), two ventricular extrastimuli during reciprocating tachycardia (6 patients), and during a single atrial extrastimulus (1 patient). None of the six men and nine women, aged 16-61 years, had apparent heart disease. VT lasted for 20 +/- 14 (mean +/- standard deviation) cycles with a cycle length of 235 ms +/- 27 and was generally polymorphic. One patient had ventricular fibrillation. These patients were compared to 15 age- and sex-matched patients studied in the same time period. There was no difference in anterograde effective refractory period of the accessory pathway (316 +/- 92 vs 319 +/- 68 ms), ventricular effective refractory period (218 +/- 12 vs 227 +/- 23), shortest pacing cycle length maintaining 1:1 anterograde conduction over the accessory pathway (306 +/- 132 vs 320 +/- 67) or minimum R-R interval between preexcited beats during atrial fibrillation (280 +/- 68 vs 294 +/- 105). All patients are alive and well over a follow-up interval of 20 +/- 11 months on no antiarrhythmic therapy (13 patients) or on propranolol (2 patients).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Milstein et al. (1985) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: