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

John Devens Fisher, Simie B. Platt, Mark C. Cua, Lawrence E. Waspe, Soo G. Kim, Kevin J. Ferrick, Jay N. Gross, James A. Roth

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and study objective: Conventional programmed electrical stimulation (PES) is useful for establishing inducibility or noninducibility of clinical ventriculur arrhythmius (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 I04 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 ventriculur arrhythmias, UTS yields results that are similar to those of conventional PES protocols in a shorter length of time.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)518-523
Number of pages6
JournalPACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Volume26
Issue number1 II
StatePublished - Jan 1 2003

Fingerprint

Electric Stimulation
Cardiac Arrhythmias
Heart Diseases
Amiodarone
Cross-Over Studies
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Programmed electrical stimulation
  • Ventricular electrical stimulation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Broad applicability of ultrarapid train stimulation as an efficient alternative to conventional programmed electrical stimulation. / Fisher, John Devens; Platt, Simie B.; Cua, Mark C.; Waspe, Lawrence E.; Kim, Soo G.; Ferrick, Kevin J.; Gross, Jay N.; Roth, James A.

In: PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, Vol. 26, No. 1 II, 01.01.2003, p. 518-523.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c0831bdcd04f433ab5ca5f072698b3b3,
title = "Broad applicability of ultrarapid train stimulation as an efficient alternative to conventional programmed electrical stimulation",
abstract = "Background and study objective: Conventional programmed electrical stimulation (PES) is useful for establishing inducibility or noninducibility of clinical ventriculur arrhythmius (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 I04 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 ventriculur arrhythmias, UTS yields results that are similar to those of conventional PES protocols in a shorter length of time.",
keywords = "Programmed electrical stimulation, Ventricular electrical stimulation",
author = "Fisher, {John Devens} and Platt, {Simie B.} and Cua, {Mark C.} and Waspe, {Lawrence E.} and Kim, {Soo G.} and Ferrick, {Kevin J.} and Gross, {Jay N.} and Roth, {James A.}",
year = "2003",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "518--523",
journal = "PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology",
issn = "0147-8389",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1 II",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Broad applicability of ultrarapid train stimulation as an efficient alternative to conventional programmed electrical stimulation

AU - Fisher, John Devens

AU - Platt, Simie B.

AU - Cua, Mark C.

AU - Waspe, Lawrence E.

AU - Kim, Soo G.

AU - Ferrick, Kevin J.

AU - Gross, Jay N.

AU - Roth, James A.

PY - 2003/1/1

Y1 - 2003/1/1

N2 - Background and study objective: Conventional programmed electrical stimulation (PES) is useful for establishing inducibility or noninducibility of clinical ventriculur arrhythmius (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 I04 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 ventriculur arrhythmias, UTS yields results that are similar to those of conventional PES protocols in a shorter length of time.

AB - Background and study objective: Conventional programmed electrical stimulation (PES) is useful for establishing inducibility or noninducibility of clinical ventriculur arrhythmius (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 I04 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 ventriculur arrhythmias, UTS yields results that are similar to those of conventional PES protocols in a shorter length of time.

KW - Programmed electrical stimulation

KW - Ventricular electrical stimulation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037247569&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037247569&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 12687882

AN - SCOPUS:0037247569

VL - 26

SP - 518

EP - 523

JO - PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

JF - PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

SN - 0147-8389

IS - 1 II

ER -