These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8000619)
1. Interpretation of the results of the Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) study: programmed ventricular stimulation advocates view. Mitchell LB; Wyse DG Coron Artery Dis; 1994 Aug; 5(8):671-6. PubMed ID: 8000619 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Interpretation of the results of the Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) study: electrocardiographic monitoring advocates' view. d'Avila A; Fenelon G; Nellens P; Brugada P Coron Artery Dis; 1994 Aug; 5(8):677-81. PubMed ID: 8000620 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Serial electrophysiologic-pharmacologic studies for the control of ventricular arrhythmias. Fisher JD; Kim SG; Ferrick KJ; Roth JA Coron Artery Dis; 1994 Aug; 5(8):653-64. PubMed ID: 8000617 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Electrophysiologic Study versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM): a critical appraisal. Prystowsky EN Control Clin Trials; 1996 Jun; 17(3 Suppl):28S-36S. PubMed ID: 8877265 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Interpretation of the results of the Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) study: impact on algorithm for drug selection. Campbell RW Coron Artery Dis; 1994 Aug; 5(8):682-5. PubMed ID: 8000621 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Fractal dimension predicts arrhythmia recurrence in patients being treated for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. ESVEM Investigators. Karagounis LA; Stein KM; Bair T; Albright D; Anderson JL J Electrocardiol; 1995; 28 Suppl():71-3. PubMed ID: 8656133 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Recent insights in programmed electrical stimulation for the management of sustained ventricular arrhythmias. Wood M; Stambler B; Ellenbogen K Curr Opin Cardiol; 1994 Jan; 9(1):3-11. PubMed ID: 8199368 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Implications of the Electrophysiologic Study versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring trial for controlling ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. Reiffel JA Am J Cardiol; 1996 Aug; 78(4A):34-40. PubMed ID: 8780327 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The ESVEM trial: impact on treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring. Reiter MJ Pacing Clin Electrophysiol; 1997 Feb; 20(2 Pt 2):468-77. PubMed ID: 9058850 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of programmed electrical stimulation and ambulatory electrocardiographic (Holter) monitoring in the management of ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation. Platia EV; Reid PR J Am Coll Cardiol; 1984 Sep; 4(3):493-500. PubMed ID: 6470328 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effect of reproducibility of baseline arrhythmia induction on drug efficacy predictions and outcome in the Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) trial. Mann DE; Hartz V; Hahn EA; Reiter MJ Am J Cardiol; 1997 Dec; 80(11):1448-52. PubMed ID: 9399720 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Causes and treatment of ventricular arrhythmias]. Kappenberger L Schweiz Med Wochenschr; 1990 Jun; 120(25):941-5. PubMed ID: 1695020 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Principles underlying the use of Holter monitoring to define the efficacy of antiarrhythmic drugs. Moss AJ; Zareba W Coron Artery Dis; 1994 Aug; 5(8):665-70. PubMed ID: 8000618 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Holter monitoring as valuable as EPS testing. Can J Cardiol; 1993 Oct; 9(8):687-8. PubMed ID: 8269354 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Influence of Holter monitor and electrophysiologic study methods and efficacy criteria on the outcome of patients with ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation in the ESVEM trial. Reiffel JA; Reiter MJ; Freedman RA; Mann D; Huang SK; Hahn E; Hartz V; Mason J; Prog Cardiovasc Dis; 1996; 38(5):359-70. PubMed ID: 8604440 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Insights into the Electrophysiology Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring Trial: its programmed stimulation protocol may introduce bias when assessing long-term antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Biblo LA; Carlson MD; Waldo AL J Am Coll Cardiol; 1995 Jun; 25(7):1601-4. PubMed ID: 7759711 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Significance and incidence of concordance of drug efficacy predictions by Holter monitoring and electrophysiological study in the ESVEM Trial. Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring. Reiter MJ; Mann DE; Reiffel JE; Hahn E; Hartz V Circulation; 1995 Apr; 91(7):1988-95. PubMed ID: 7895357 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A summary and assessment of the findings and conclusions of the ESVEM trial. Mason JW; Marcus FI; Bigger JT; Lazzara R; Reiffel JA; Reiter MJ; Mann D Prog Cardiovasc Dis; 1996; 38(5):347-58. PubMed ID: 8604439 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparative efficacy of sotalol and class I antiarrhythmic agents in patients with ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation: results of the Electrophysiology Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) Trial. Klein RC Eur Heart J; 1993 Nov; 14 Suppl H():78-84. PubMed ID: 8293756 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Reproducibility of drug efficacy predictions by Holter monitoring in the electrophysiologic study versus electrocardiographic monitoring (ESVEM) trial. ESVEM Investigators. Reiter MJ; Karagounis LA; Mann DE; Reiffel JA; Hahn E; Hartz V Am J Cardiol; 1997 Feb; 79(3):315-22. PubMed ID: 9036751 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]