Programmed electrical stimulation studies for ventricular tachycardia induction in humans. II. Comparison of indwelling electrode catheter and daily catheter replacement

23Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Suppression of the ability to induce ventricular tachycardia by programmed electrical stimulation during serial drug testing has been used as a therapeutic end point to identify long-term prophylactic antiarrhythmic therapy. However, ventricular tachycardia induction, particularly with an indwelling electrode catheter, has not been systematically assessed over the time period required for serial drug testing. In this study, the results of programmed electrical stimulation were evaluated daily during serial drug-free conditions before testing various antiarrhythmic drugs. Twenty-four patients were randomly allocated to be studied with the electrode catheter left in place or replaced daily. All patients had inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia during the first study. Loss of the ability to induce ventricular tachycardia occurred in 8 of 13 patients whose catheter was left in place whereas this did not occur in patients whose catheter was replaced daily (p < 0.01). In addition, use of an in situ catheter was accompanied by significant (p < 0.05) changes in other electrophysiologic measurements, including number of extrastimuli required to induce ventricular tachycardia and length of ventricular functional and effective refractory periods. The serial changes seen with indwelling catheters in the drug-free state may mimic effective antiarrhythmic drug action. © 1986, American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Duff, H. J., Brent Mitchell, L., & George Wyse, D. (1986). Programmed electrical stimulation studies for ventricular tachycardia induction in humans. II. Comparison of indwelling electrode catheter and daily catheter replacement. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 8(3), 576–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(86)80185-1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free