Comparison of burst pacing, autodecremental (ramp) pacing, and universal pacing for termination of ventricular tachycardia

John Devens Fisher, Z. Zhang, Soo G. Kim, Kevin J. Ferrick, J. A. Roth, D. R. Johnston

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study was designed to test the comparative efficacy of burst pacing, autodecremental (ramp) pacing, and universal (steep ramp) pacing for termination of ventricular tachycardia. A prospective, randomized sequence cross-over design was used to achieve comparisons of the pacing modalities that were matched for patient, day, and ventricular tachycardia characteristics. Thirty eight patients were enrolled, whose ventricular tachycardia was well-enough tolerated to be reinduced, and tested with 3 pacing modalities. There were 27 series 1 patients in which the pacing modalities were nonsynchronized burst pacing, synchronized burst pacing, and ramp pacing. The 11 patients in series 2 were tested with synchronized burst pacing, ramp pacing, and universal pacing. All pacing methods proved to be comparable in their ability to terminate ventricular tachycardia (p = NS). The 2 burst methods required the fewest number of attempts (significant vs ramp pacing). Universal pacing required the fewest number of stimuli. The mean paced cycle length was similar will all methods. The shortest paced cycle lengths were found with the autodecremental and universal methods because of their ramp patterns. It is concluded that burst, ramp, and universal pacing are of similar efficacy, although ramps were least efficient. Choice of a modality depends on operator preference, and individual patient response.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)135-139
Number of pages5
JournalArchives des Maladies du Coeur et des Vaisseaux
Volume89
Issue numberSPEC. ISSUE I
StatePublished - Feb 1996

Fingerprint

Architectural Accessibility
Ventricular Tachycardia
Patient Preference
Cross-Over Studies

Keywords

  • antitachycardia pacing
  • ventricular tachycardia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Comparison of burst pacing, autodecremental (ramp) pacing, and universal pacing for termination of ventricular tachycardia. / Fisher, John Devens; Zhang, Z.; Kim, Soo G.; Ferrick, Kevin J.; Roth, J. A.; Johnston, D. R.

In: Archives des Maladies du Coeur et des Vaisseaux, Vol. 89, No. SPEC. ISSUE I, 02.1996, p. 135-139.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a810747938a14a68879d5d5fe0de9b1a,
title = "Comparison of burst pacing, autodecremental (ramp) pacing, and universal pacing for termination of ventricular tachycardia",
abstract = "This study was designed to test the comparative efficacy of burst pacing, autodecremental (ramp) pacing, and universal (steep ramp) pacing for termination of ventricular tachycardia. A prospective, randomized sequence cross-over design was used to achieve comparisons of the pacing modalities that were matched for patient, day, and ventricular tachycardia characteristics. Thirty eight patients were enrolled, whose ventricular tachycardia was well-enough tolerated to be reinduced, and tested with 3 pacing modalities. There were 27 series 1 patients in which the pacing modalities were nonsynchronized burst pacing, synchronized burst pacing, and ramp pacing. The 11 patients in series 2 were tested with synchronized burst pacing, ramp pacing, and universal pacing. All pacing methods proved to be comparable in their ability to terminate ventricular tachycardia (p = NS). The 2 burst methods required the fewest number of attempts (significant vs ramp pacing). Universal pacing required the fewest number of stimuli. The mean paced cycle length was similar will all methods. The shortest paced cycle lengths were found with the autodecremental and universal methods because of their ramp patterns. It is concluded that burst, ramp, and universal pacing are of similar efficacy, although ramps were least efficient. Choice of a modality depends on operator preference, and individual patient response.",
keywords = "antitachycardia pacing, ventricular tachycardia",
author = "Fisher, {John Devens} and Z. Zhang and Kim, {Soo G.} and Ferrick, {Kevin J.} and Roth, {J. A.} and Johnston, {D. R.}",
year = "1996",
month = "2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "89",
pages = "135--139",
journal = "Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases",
issn = "1875-2136",
publisher = "Elsevier Masson",
number = "SPEC. ISSUE I",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of burst pacing, autodecremental (ramp) pacing, and universal pacing for termination of ventricular tachycardia

AU - Fisher, John Devens

AU - Zhang, Z.

AU - Kim, Soo G.

AU - Ferrick, Kevin J.

AU - Roth, J. A.

AU - Johnston, D. R.

PY - 1996/2

Y1 - 1996/2

N2 - This study was designed to test the comparative efficacy of burst pacing, autodecremental (ramp) pacing, and universal (steep ramp) pacing for termination of ventricular tachycardia. A prospective, randomized sequence cross-over design was used to achieve comparisons of the pacing modalities that were matched for patient, day, and ventricular tachycardia characteristics. Thirty eight patients were enrolled, whose ventricular tachycardia was well-enough tolerated to be reinduced, and tested with 3 pacing modalities. There were 27 series 1 patients in which the pacing modalities were nonsynchronized burst pacing, synchronized burst pacing, and ramp pacing. The 11 patients in series 2 were tested with synchronized burst pacing, ramp pacing, and universal pacing. All pacing methods proved to be comparable in their ability to terminate ventricular tachycardia (p = NS). The 2 burst methods required the fewest number of attempts (significant vs ramp pacing). Universal pacing required the fewest number of stimuli. The mean paced cycle length was similar will all methods. The shortest paced cycle lengths were found with the autodecremental and universal methods because of their ramp patterns. It is concluded that burst, ramp, and universal pacing are of similar efficacy, although ramps were least efficient. Choice of a modality depends on operator preference, and individual patient response.

AB - This study was designed to test the comparative efficacy of burst pacing, autodecremental (ramp) pacing, and universal (steep ramp) pacing for termination of ventricular tachycardia. A prospective, randomized sequence cross-over design was used to achieve comparisons of the pacing modalities that were matched for patient, day, and ventricular tachycardia characteristics. Thirty eight patients were enrolled, whose ventricular tachycardia was well-enough tolerated to be reinduced, and tested with 3 pacing modalities. There were 27 series 1 patients in which the pacing modalities were nonsynchronized burst pacing, synchronized burst pacing, and ramp pacing. The 11 patients in series 2 were tested with synchronized burst pacing, ramp pacing, and universal pacing. All pacing methods proved to be comparable in their ability to terminate ventricular tachycardia (p = NS). The 2 burst methods required the fewest number of attempts (significant vs ramp pacing). Universal pacing required the fewest number of stimuli. The mean paced cycle length was similar will all methods. The shortest paced cycle lengths were found with the autodecremental and universal methods because of their ramp patterns. It is concluded that burst, ramp, and universal pacing are of similar efficacy, although ramps were least efficient. Choice of a modality depends on operator preference, and individual patient response.

KW - antitachycardia pacing

KW - ventricular tachycardia

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029969225&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029969225&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 89

SP - 135

EP - 139

JO - Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases

JF - Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases

SN - 1875-2136

IS - SPEC. ISSUE I

ER -