Programmed ventricular stimulation using tandem versus simple sequential protocols

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.

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.

The role of catheter ablation in atrial tachycardia, flutter, and fibrillation

The first experiences of nonpharmacological treatment of ectopic atrial tachycardia (EAT), common atrial flutter (AFl), and atrial fibrillation (AF) were performed by surgical techniques. Many studies reported a very high success rate on the use of catheter ablation with radiofrequency current for the treatment of supraventricular arrhythmias; and recently, various preliminary reports are dedicated to the treatment of EAT, AFl, and AF with that source of energy. To our knowledge 108 cases of EAT treated by catheter ablation of the ectopic focus are reported in the literature with a success rate superior to 90%. On the basis of our personal experience regarding 11 cases (4 of right atrium EAT and 7 of left) we discuss here the essential role of unipolar leads derived from the mapping catheter to select the target for radiofrequency applications. Two hundred and one cases of AFl tested by catheter ablation were previously reported. The majority of them (> 80%) were successfully treated with radiofrequency. Some working groups performed the procedure as the basis of electrophysiological findings, while others preferred an anatomical approach applying radiofrequency energy at the isthmus lying between the coronary sinus ostium and the tricuspid ring, near the vena cava orifice. On the basis of these assumptions, we obtained 83% of final success in 12 cases of AFl treated by radiofrequency. Finally, we discuss the problem related to the modulation of atrioventricular (AV) nodal conduction during AF. In our laboratory, five cases with chronic AF and very fast ventricular response were treated with radiofrequency with a posterior septal approach. In all patients, we obtained very encouraging results with a constant decrease of ventricular rate (from 137 +/- 33 to 69 +/- 14 beats per minute). All cases treated by modulation of AV nodal conduction demonstrated an appropriate chronotropic response to the variations of the functional state that persists during the follow-up. More experience with longer follow-up and accurate pre- and postprocedure evaluations are needed to finalize the most appropriate technique of radiofrequency applications in these cases.