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.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes