INTRODUCTION: Testing for inducible ventricular tachycardia (VT) pre- and postablation forms the cornerstone of contemporary scar-related VT ablation procedures. There is significant heterogeneity in reported VT induction protocols. We examined the utility of an extensive induction protocol (up to 4 extra-stimuli [ES] ± burst ventricular pacing) compared to the current guideline-recommended protocol (up to 3ES, defined as limited induction protocol) in patients with scar-related VT. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty-two patients (age: 64 ± 14 years; left ventricular ejection fraction: 37 ± 13%, ischemic cardiomyopathy: 31, nonischemic cardiomyopathy: 31) with at least one inducible VT were included. An extensive testing protocol induced 11%-17% more VTs, compared to the limited induction protocol before, and after the final ablation. VT recurred in 48% of patients during a mean follow up of 566 ± 428 days. Patients who were noninducible for any VT using the limited induction protocol had worse ventricular arrhythmia (VA)-free survival (12 months, 43% vs. 82%; p = .03) and worse survival free of VA, transplantation and mortality (12 months 46% vs. 82%; p = .02), compared to patients who were noninducible for any VT using the extensive induction protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Between 11% and 17% of inducible VTs may be missed if 4ES and burst pacing are not performed in induction protocols before and after ablation. Noninducibility for any VT after an extensive induction protocol after the final ablation portends more favorable prognostic outcomes when compared with the current guideline-recommended induction protocol of up to 3ES. This data suggests that the adoption of an extensive induction protocol is of prognostic benefit after VT ablation.
INTRODUCTION: Testing for inducible ventricular tachycardia (VT) pre- and postablation forms the cornerstone of contemporary scar-related VT ablation procedures. There is significant heterogeneity in reported VT induction protocols. We examined the utility of an extensive induction protocol (up to 4 extra-stimuli [ES] ± burst ventricular pacing) compared to the current guideline-recommended protocol (up to 3ES, defined as limited induction protocol) in patients with scar-related VT. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty-two patients (age: 64 ± 14 years; left ventricular ejection fraction: 37 ± 13%, ischemic cardiomyopathy: 31, nonischemic cardiomyopathy: 31) with at least one inducible VT were included. An extensive testing protocol induced 11%-17% more VTs, compared to the limited induction protocol before, and after the final ablation. VT recurred in 48% of patients during a mean follow up of 566 ± 428 days. Patients who were noninducible for any VT using the limited induction protocol had worse ventricular arrhythmia (VA)-free survival (12 months, 43% vs. 82%; p = .03) and worse survival free of VA, transplantation and mortality (12 months 46% vs. 82%; p = .02), compared to patients who were noninducible for any VT using the extensive induction protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Between 11% and 17% of inducible VTs may be missed if 4ES and burst pacing are not performed in induction protocols before and after ablation. Noninducibility for any VT after an extensive induction protocol after the final ablation portends more favorable prognostic outcomes when compared with the current guideline-recommended induction protocol of up to 3ES. This data suggests that the adoption of an extensive induction protocol is of prognostic benefit after VT ablation.