Increasing the yield of ventricular tachycardia induction: a prospective, randomized comparative study of the standard ventricular stimulation protocol to a short-to-long protocol and a new two-site protocol

Skeletal myoblast implants induce minor propagation delays, but do not promote arrhythmias in the normal swine heart

AIMS

Whether skeletal myoblast (SM) implants are proarrhythmic is still controversial due to conflicting pre-clinical and clinical data. We hypothesized that if SM implants are arrhythmogenic, they will facilitate the induction of ventricular tachyarrhythmias by promoting heterogeneous propagation of activation wavefronts.

METHODS

Skeletal myoblast cells were harvested from 10 pigs. A month later, 125 ± 37 × 10(6) cells were subepicardially injected in an area of ∼2 cm(2) at the anterolateral aspect of the left ventricle. Four weeks later, a ventricular stimulation protocol was conducted. Once explanted, epicardial wavefronts over SM and adjacent control areas were optically mapped. Eight saline-injected animals were used as controls. To compare with clear arrhythmogenic substrates, propagation patterns were also evaluated in infarcted hearts and on a SM-implanted heart following amiodarone infusion.

RESULTS

In SM hearts, fibrosis and differentiated SM cells were consistently found and no tachyarrhythmias were induced. Wavefronts propagated homogeneously over SM and adjacent areas, with no late activation zones, as opposed to the infarcted hearts. The time required for the wavefronts to depolarize both areas were similar, becoming only slightly longer at SM areas after an extra-stimulus (P = 0.025). Conduction velocities and APD(90) were also similar. Saline hearts showed similar results. The extent of the conduction delay was not related to the number of injected SM cells.

CONCLUSION

In normal swine hearts, myoblast implants promote localized fibrosis and slightly retard epicardial wavefront propagation only after extra-stimuli. However, SM implants are not associated with local re-entry and do not facilitate ventricular tachyarrhythmias in the whole normal heart.

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

BACKGROUND AND STUDY OBJECTIVE

Conventional programmed electrical stimulation (PES) is useful for establishing inducibility or noninducibility of clinical ventricular arrhythmias (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 104 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 ventricular arrhythmias, UTS yields results that are similar to those of conventional PES protocols in a shorter length of time.

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.

Programmed ventricular stimulation using tandem versus simple sequential protocols

The objective was to determine whether two commonly used ventricular stimulation protocols, one more complex than the other, produced concordant results. If such were the case, the simpler protocol would streamline activities in clinical electrophysiology laboratories.

BACKGROUND

Two programmed ventricular stimulation protocols were compared. (1) With the tandem method, the first extrastimulus (S2) is moved stepwise to the effective refractory period and then moved out 50 msec; the second extrastimulus (S3) is then decremented until it fails to capture; S2 and S3 are then decremented in a semialternating (tandem) fashion so that both continue to capture. When S2 reaches the refractory period + 10 msec and S3 fails to capture, S3 is then moved out 50 msec, and S4 is decremented as described for S3. (2) With the simple sequential method, the first extrastimulus (S2) is decremented stepwise to the refractory period, and then moved out 10 msec to assure capture; S3 is then similarly decremented to the refractory period and then moved out 10 msec; and S4 is then similarly decremented.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, crossover, consecutive series study. Both protocols were tested in each patient on the same day in randomized order.

RESULTS

There were 84 matched studies. Fifty-six patients provided data from baseline electrophysiological studies, and 28 of these provided additional data during drug trials. There was a 93% concordance between the two methods, including the primary outcomes of inducibility of clinical arrhythmias, inducibility of nonclinical arrhythmias, and noninducibility (P < 0.001). Discordances were few and evenly distributed between the two protocols (P = NS). Results were similar for baseline studies and drug trials. The simple sequential method required less time to perform (P < or = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Tandem and simple sequential protocols provide concordant results. No advantage could be demonstrated for the more complex tandem method.

Programmed electrical stimulation protocols: variations on a theme

A series of prospective protocols were designed to determine the yield ratio (true positives vs. false positives = nonclinical) in various patient groups using a variety of programmed electrical stimulation (PES) variables. First, a PES protocol was used in 772 patients. Single, double, and triple extrastimuli were delivered in sequence (leaving each successive extrastimulus just beyond its refractory period before moving to the next extrastimulus) during sinus rhythm and two ventricular paced rates at the RV apex, before moving to the outflow tract and repeating the sequence and then moving on to isoproterenol infusion with the PES sequence repeated at the apex. This protocol met NASPE standards for induction of VT in patients with coronary artery disease and a history of VT, while failing to induce monomorphic VT in any control patient. The best yield ratios combined with the greatest likelihood of inducing clinical tachycardia were achieved with sinus rhythm and three extrastimuli, and pacing at the lower rate and three extrastimuli. Pacing at the faster rate and triple extrastimuli was highly inductive of clinical arrhythmias, but had a low yield ratio due to induction of more nonclinical arrhythmias than other steps. The next protocol was performed in 61 patients with inducible ventricular tachycardia. In each case, the protocol described above was completed at the RV apex, even if tachycardia was also induced at an earlier point in the protocol. This allowed for more accurate yield ratios to be established for each step in the protocol, since each patient was exposed to each of these steps.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Stimulation hierarchy: optimal sequence for double and triple extrastimuli during electrophysiological studies

To determine the optimal ventricular stimulation sequence, an 11-step programmed electrical stimulation (PES) protocol was completed, even if a ventricular arrhythmia (VA) was induced with earlier steps. The protocol consisted of one, two, and three extrastimuli during sinus rhythm (SR), and at two drive pacing rates (VP1 and VP2) plus rapid burst and ramp pacing. By analyzing the 79 completed protocols that induced the clinical arrhythmia, the following were determined: (1) the frequency of induced clinical and nonclinical VA with each stimulation step; (2) the yield ratio (YR) of each step, defined as the probability of inducing clinical versus nonclinical arrhythmia; (3) the cumulative yield of induced clinical and nonclinical arrhythmia with two widely used stimulation sequences, i.e., triple extrastimuli delivered early in the stimulation protocol (MMC sequence) and triple extrastimuli delayed until after double extrastimuli failed to induce the clinical arrhythmia (B sequence); (4) the relative efficiency of these sequences were determined. The percentage of induced clinical and nonclinical arrhythmia with SR + 3 extrastimuli, VP1 + 2 extrastimuli, and VP2 + 2 extrastimuli were (53%, 5%), (36%, 5%), and (41%, 9%), respectively. The cumulative yield of induced clinical VA with the MMC-type sequence reached 55% by the third step of the protocol, whereas 50% was attained only at the eighth step of the B-type sequence. The cumulative percentage of induced nonclinical VA with either sequence was similar during the early steps of the protocol. The MMC sequence was more efficient, requiring overall 36% of potential steps for clinical arrhythmia induction, compared with 48% for the B sequence (P less than 0.001). For questionable arrhythmia states, e.g., syncope of unknown origin and nonsustained VT, a modified sequence is proposed that may further reduce the induction of uninterpretable arrhythmias.

Programmed electrical stimulation of the ventricle: an efficient, sensitive, and specific protocol

A relatively simple and efficient ventricular programmed electrical stimulation (PES) protocol was developed, capable of achieving high degrees of sensitivity and specificity. In a series of 481 subjects, 1, 2, and 3 extrastimuli (ES) were used successively during sinus rhythm and ventricular pacing at two drive cycle lengths, at one or more ventricular sites, together with rapid ventricular pacing, and other maneuvers such as isoproterenol infusion. Three ES were used immediately after two ES at each drive rate, rather than returning after completion of the protocol with two ES. Using the protocol, appropriate arrhythmias could be induced in 88% of all patients with ventricular fibrillation, 84% of all patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia (91% with underlying coronary disease), and 58% of patients with severe nonsustained ventricular tachycardia. There were significant differences in inducibility between patients whose ventricular arrhythmias were due to coronary artery disease and other causes. In contrast, sustained ventricular arrhythmias (all ventricular fibrillation) could be induced in only 5% of a control group of control patients, for a specificity of 95%. The protocol described is simpler and more efficient than those that use exhaustive testing of two ES before going to three ES. Three ES during sinus rhythm proved to be the most productive step, with a higher yield ratio (true: false-positives) than two ES or three ES during pacing, especially at faster rates. Greater efficiency is also achieved by leaving the timing of an extrastimulus just beyond its effective refractory period when an additional extrastimulus is to be added, compared to protocols in which the extrastimulus is moved later in the cycle and then decremented in tandem with the additional extrastimulus. Coupling intervals less than 200 msec produced some false-positives, but fewer overall than intervals greater than or equal to 200 msec, and with yield ratios comparable to other protocol steps. The protocol described meets NASPE standards for ventricular programmed stimulation protocols, and with its demonstrated specificity and relative simplicity and efficiency may be useful as a model for groups not yet committed to an alternative protocol.