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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A comparison of ventricular arrhythmias induced with programmed stimulation versus alternating current.
    Author: Cua M, Veltri EP.
    Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol; 1993 Mar; 16(3 Pt 1):382-6. PubMed ID: 7681187.
    Abstract:
    In patients undergoing implantation and testing of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), alternating current (AC) may be used to induce ventricular tachyarrhythmias in a prompt, safe, and efficient manner. These arrhythmias have been previously reported to be similar to those induced during programmed electrical stimulation (PES). We compared the ventricular tachyarrhythmias induced by both methods in 14 patients: 8 male, 6 female; mean age 61 years; coronary disease in 10, cardiomyopathy in 4; mean ejection fraction 31%. The presenting arrhythmia was nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) in four, sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (SMVT) in five, ventricular fibrillation (VF) in four, and unknown in one patient with syncope. PES (single, double, triple extrastimuli; burst pacing) and AC (1-2 sec application) stimulation via right ventricular endocardial electrode catheter was performed off antiarrhythmic drugs in the nonsedated state. PES induced SMVT in nine, polymorphic VT in two, and VF in three. AC induced VF in all patients. Although AC can reliably induce ventricular tachyarrhythmias during defibrillation threshold and ICD testing, there is poor correlation to PES induced tachyarrhythmias.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]