Programmed electrical stimulation of the ventricle: an efficient, sensitive, and specific protocol

Decremental Ramp Atrial Extrastimuli Pacing Protocol for the Induction of Atrioventricular Nodal Re-entrant Tachycardia and Other Supraventricular Tachycardias

AIM

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of decremental ramp atrial extrastimuli pacing protocol (PRTCL) for induction of atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia (AVNRT), and other supraventricular tachycardias (SVTs), compared to standard (STD) methods.

METHODS

The study cohort of 121 patients (age 57.51 +/- 14.02 years) who presented with documented SVTs and/or symptoms of palpitations and dizziness, and underwent invasive electrophysiological evaluation was divided into Group I (AVNRT, n = 42) and Group II (Control, n = 79). The PRTCL involved a train of six atrial extrastimuli, delivered in a decremental ramp fashion. The STD methods included continuous burst and rapid incremental pacing up to atrioventricular (AV) block cycle length, and single and occasionally double atrial extrastimuli. Prolongation in the Atrio-Hisian (Delta-AH) intervals achieved by both methods were compared, as were induction frequencies.

RESULTS

In Group I, three categories of responses--(1) induction of AVNRT, (2) induction of echo beats only, and (3) none--were observed in 29 (69%), 11 (26%), and 2 (5%) patients with the PRTCL, when compared with 14 (33%), 16 (38%), and 12 (29%) patients with STD methods in the baseline state without the use of pharmacological agents. The Delta-AH intervals for each of these three categories were larger using PRTCL versus STD methods; 293.3 +/- 95.2 ms versus 192.9 +/- 61.4 ms (P < 0.005), 308.6 +/- 68.5 ms versus 189. 9 +/- 64.9 ms (P < 0.0005), and 203.0 +/- 86.3 ms versus 145.8 +/- 58.9 ms (P = NS), respectively. In Group II, in one patient with dual AV nodal physiology but no clinical tachycardia, the PRTCL induced nonsustained (12 beats) AVNRT. Additionally, in this group, both PRTCL and STD methods induced atrial tachycardia in two patients and orthodromic AV re-entrant tachycardia in one patient.

CONCLUSION

Decremental ramp atrial extrastimuli pacing PRTCL demonstrates a superior response for induction of typical AVNRT as compared to STD techniques. Because of easy and reliable induction of AVNRT and echo beats by the PRTCL, we recommend it as a method to increase the likelihood of induction of AVNRT. For induction of other SVTs, the PRTCL and the STD methods are comparable.

Broad applicability of ultrarapid train stimulation as an efficient alternative to conventional programmed electrical stimulation

BACKGROUND AND STUDY OBJECTIVE

Conventional programmed electrical stimulation (PES) is useful for establishing inducibility or noninducibility of clinical ventricular arrhythmias (VA), but is complex and time-consuming. This study compared a standard PES protocol with ultrarapid train stimulation (UTS) in a broad range of patients with and without a history of ventricular arrhythmias or structural heart disease.

METHODS

Patients prospectively underwent electrophysiologic testing with both UTS and conventional PES protocols in a randomized, crossover design.

RESULTS

The results were concordant in 79% of 150 matched pairs of comparisons in 104 patients (NS). There were no differences related to underlying heart disease or arrhythmia, or antiarrhythmic treatment. Induction of nonclinical arrhythmias with the two methods was similar (P = 0.524). Inhibition phenomena were minor except in some patients receiving amiodarone. Fewer drive-extrastimuli sequences and less time were needed to complete the trains protocol (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In cases where the main intent is to induce ventricular arrhythmias, UTS yields results that are similar to those of conventional PES protocols in a shorter length of time.

Can catheter ablation in cardiac arrest survivors prevent ventricular fibrillation recurrence?

Ventricular tachyarrhythmias are the most common cause for sudden cardiac death. The success of catheter ablation for supraventricular tachycardias led to the supposition that ablation could also be used in the treatment of ventricular tachycardias. Despite the promising results in bundle branch reentry and some forms of idiopathic ventricular tachycardia, the success rate in patients with coronary artery disease is still low. There is hope that new approaches to reliably localize the critical region of the tachycardia and new ablation techniques to create larger areas of injury may lead to a wider application of ablation therapy in the treatment of ventricular tachycardia. Survivors of cardiac arrest typically have more rapid and unstable arrhythmias than patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia, and these rapid arrhythmias frequently degenerate into ventricular fibrillation. The instability of the arrhythmia makes it impossible to localize the arrhythmia origin with current mapping techniques. Experimental and clinical data, however, suggest that these arrhythmias also frequently start from a localized area of electrical activation. With developments in mapping techniques and energy delivery, catheter ablation may soon become a feasible therapeutic approach in some patients with unstable arrhythmias. The article discusses the prerequisites for this approach and suggests the patients who may be appropriate candidates for this technique.

Ultrarapid train stimulation versus conventional programmed electrical stimulation for induction of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with coronary artery disease

Conventional programmed electrical stimulation (PES) of the ventricle is useful for establishing inducibility or noninducibility of clinical ventricular arrhythmias (VA) but is complex and time consuming. The present study was designed to compare a standard PES protocol with an alternative method using ultrarapid train stimulation in patients with VA and coronary artery disease (CAD). A prospective, randomized, crossover design was used. During each session in the electrophysiology laboratory, patients were studied using both the trains and PES protocols in randomized order. In 82 matched pairs of comparisons in 50 patients, results were concordant in 85% (p < 0.0001). There were no differences related to type of clinical arrhythmia or to the presence of antiarrhythmic drugs. There were no significant differences in the induction of nonclinical arrhythmias with the two methods (p < 0.0001 for concordance). There were no significant differences related to the cycle length of the trains (10, 20, or 30 ms, equivalent to 100, 50, or 33 Hz). The number of drive-extrastimuli sequences and the time required to complete the trains protocol was significantly shorter (p < 0.0001) using trains versus PES. Ultrarapid train stimulation provides results in CAD patients that are comparable with those of conventional PES protocols. There is a significant savings in time, adding practical value to intrinsic electrophysiologic interest. Trains may be useful when multiple inductions are desirable, for example, in the setting of antitachycardia pacing parameters in an implantable defibrillator (ICD), during ICD implantation, or in other circumstances where the main question is inducibility of ventricular arrhythmias.

Programmed ventricular stimulation using tandem versus simple sequential protocols

The objective was to determine whether two commonly used ventricular stimulation protocols, one more complex than the other, produced concordant results. If such were the case, the simpler protocol would streamline activities in clinical electrophysiology laboratories.

BACKGROUND

Two programmed ventricular stimulation protocols were compared. (1) With the tandem method, the first extrastimulus (S2) is moved stepwise to the effective refractory period and then moved out 50 msec; the second extrastimulus (S3) is then decremented until it fails to capture; S2 and S3 are then decremented in a semialternating (tandem) fashion so that both continue to capture. When S2 reaches the refractory period + 10 msec and S3 fails to capture, S3 is then moved out 50 msec, and S4 is decremented as described for S3. (2) With the simple sequential method, the first extrastimulus (S2) is decremented stepwise to the refractory period, and then moved out 10 msec to assure capture; S3 is then similarly decremented to the refractory period and then moved out 10 msec; and S4 is then similarly decremented.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, crossover, consecutive series study. Both protocols were tested in each patient on the same day in randomized order.

RESULTS

There were 84 matched studies. Fifty-six patients provided data from baseline electrophysiological studies, and 28 of these provided additional data during drug trials. There was a 93% concordance between the two methods, including the primary outcomes of inducibility of clinical arrhythmias, inducibility of nonclinical arrhythmias, and noninducibility (P < 0.001). Discordances were few and evenly distributed between the two protocols (P = NS). Results were similar for baseline studies and drug trials. The simple sequential method required less time to perform (P < or = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Tandem and simple sequential protocols provide concordant results. No advantage could be demonstrated for the more complex tandem method.

Programmed electrical stimulation protocols: variations on a theme

A series of prospective protocols were designed to determine the yield ratio (true positives vs. false positives = nonclinical) in various patient groups using a variety of programmed electrical stimulation (PES) variables. First, a PES protocol was used in 772 patients. Single, double, and triple extrastimuli were delivered in sequence (leaving each successive extrastimulus just beyond its refractory period before moving to the next extrastimulus) during sinus rhythm and two ventricular paced rates at the RV apex, before moving to the outflow tract and repeating the sequence and then moving on to isoproterenol infusion with the PES sequence repeated at the apex. This protocol met NASPE standards for induction of VT in patients with coronary artery disease and a history of VT, while failing to induce monomorphic VT in any control patient. The best yield ratios combined with the greatest likelihood of inducing clinical tachycardia were achieved with sinus rhythm and three extrastimuli, and pacing at the lower rate and three extrastimuli. Pacing at the faster rate and triple extrastimuli was highly inductive of clinical arrhythmias, but had a low yield ratio due to induction of more nonclinical arrhythmias than other steps. The next protocol was performed in 61 patients with inducible ventricular tachycardia. In each case, the protocol described above was completed at the RV apex, even if tachycardia was also induced at an earlier point in the protocol. This allowed for more accurate yield ratios to be established for each step in the protocol, since each patient was exposed to each of these steps.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Stimulation hierarchy: optimal sequence for double and triple extrastimuli during electrophysiological studies

To determine the optimal ventricular stimulation sequence, an 11-step programmed electrical stimulation (PES) protocol was completed, even if a ventricular arrhythmia (VA) was induced with earlier steps. The protocol consisted of one, two, and three extrastimuli during sinus rhythm (SR), and at two drive pacing rates (VP1 and VP2) plus rapid burst and ramp pacing. By analyzing the 79 completed protocols that induced the clinical arrhythmia, the following were determined: (1) the frequency of induced clinical and nonclinical VA with each stimulation step; (2) the yield ratio (YR) of each step, defined as the probability of inducing clinical versus nonclinical arrhythmia; (3) the cumulative yield of induced clinical and nonclinical arrhythmia with two widely used stimulation sequences, i.e., triple extrastimuli delivered early in the stimulation protocol (MMC sequence) and triple extrastimuli delayed until after double extrastimuli failed to induce the clinical arrhythmia (B sequence); (4) the relative efficiency of these sequences were determined. The percentage of induced clinical and nonclinical arrhythmia with SR + 3 extrastimuli, VP1 + 2 extrastimuli, and VP2 + 2 extrastimuli were (53%, 5%), (36%, 5%), and (41%, 9%), respectively. The cumulative yield of induced clinical VA with the MMC-type sequence reached 55% by the third step of the protocol, whereas 50% was attained only at the eighth step of the B-type sequence. The cumulative percentage of induced nonclinical VA with either sequence was similar during the early steps of the protocol. The MMC sequence was more efficient, requiring overall 36% of potential steps for clinical arrhythmia induction, compared with 48% for the B sequence (P less than 0.001). For questionable arrhythmia states, e.g., syncope of unknown origin and nonsustained VT, a modified sequence is proposed that may further reduce the induction of uninterpretable arrhythmias.