Key result
Unipolar and bipolar electrogram analysis perform equally well distinguishing VT from sinus rhythm.
Why the study?
Current ventricular tachycardia detection schemes based on ventricular rate have high false-positive rates, and it is unclear whether unipolar or bipolar intracardiac electrogram analysis is preferable for discrimination.
Does unipolar intracardiac electrogram analysis compared to bipolar analysis improve discrimination of ventricular tachycardia from sinus rhythm in patients with inducible sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia?
Cross-Sectional (n=15)
Does unipolar intracardiac electrogram analysis compared to bipolar analysis improve discrimination of ventricular tachycardia from sinus rhythm in patients with inducible sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia?
Unipolar and bipolar electrogram analysis are equally effective overall in distinguishing ventricular tachycardia from sinus rhythm, suggesting the optimal configuration should be selected on a patient-specific basis prior to device implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Morphology analysis may enhance antitachycardia device specificity; leaves open whether it improves outcomes in prospective device trials.
Greenhut et al. (1991) conducted a cross-sectional in inducible sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (n=15). Unipolar electrogram analysis vs. Bipolar electrogram analysis was evaluated on Discrimination between ventricular tachycardia and sinus rhythm. Morphologic analysis of unipolar and bipolar electrograms was equally effective in distinguishing ventricular tachycardia from sinus rhythm, succeeding in 93% (14/15) of patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: