Eli S. Gang

The signal-averaged electrocardiogram as a screening test for inducibility of sustained ventricular tachycardia in high risk patients: A prospective study

The role of the signal-averaged electrocardiogram in predicting the induction of sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia in high risk patients was assessed prospectively in 100 consecutive patients. Presenting diagnoses were syncope (38 patients), nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (24 patients), sustained ventricular tachycardia (25 patients) and sudden cardiac arrest (13 patients). Using programmed ventricular stimulation, 71 patients (group I) did not have and 29 patients (group II) did have inducible sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia. Using the signal-averaged electrocardiogram with filtering (6 dB/octave) at high pass corner frequencies of 67 and 100 Hz, the two groups were compared. The signal-averaged electrocardiogram was considered abnormal if all of the following criteria were satisfied: 1) the total filtered QRS complex duration was greater than 120 ms, 2) the duration of the terminal QRS complex of less than or equal to 20 microV was greater than or equal to 30 ms, and 3) at least one deflection (late potential) was present in this region. Differences between groups I and II in these three measures were highly significant (p less than or equal to 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of signal averaging for predicting the induction of sustained ventricular tachycardia were 93 and 94%, respectively. Stepwise logistic regression analysis identified the signal-averaged electrocardiogram as the best predictor of induction of sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia, independent of left ventricular ejection fraction, presence of ventricular aneurysm, myocardial infarction and other clinical variables (chi-square = 93.2, p less than 0.0001). The signal-averaged electrocardiogram is a sensitive and specific test for the induction of sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia, having independent predictive value.

Relation between upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold in humans.

BackgroundIn the canine model, an upper limit of shock strength exists that can induce ventricular fibrillation during the vulnerable period of the cardiac cycle. This shock strength (the upper limit of vulnerability) closely correlates with the defibrillation threshold and supports the “upper limit of vulnerability” hypothesis of defibrillation. It is not known whether an upper limit of vulnerability exists in humans or whether this limit correlates with the defibrillation threshold. Methods and ResultsIn 13 patients undergoing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation, the shock strengths associated with a 50% probability of reaching the upper limit of vulnerability (ULV50) and a 50% probability of reaching the defibrillation threshold (DFTF50) were determined by the up-down algorithm. The ULV50 was determined only for the mid-upslope of the positive T waves and for the mid-downslope of the negative T waves. No major complications occurred during surgery. An upper limit of vulnerability was demonstrated in each patient. The ULV50 was 300

Atypical Atrioventricular Node Reciprocating Tachycardia Masquerading as Tachycardia Using a Left-Sided Accessory Pathway ☆

138 V or 6.8

Upper limit of vulnerability reliably predicts the defibrillation threshold in humans.

5.8 J, which was significantly lower than the DFTE5 of 347

Programming of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators on the Basis of the Upper Limit of Vulnerability

167 V (p=0.038) or 9.1

The Retropectoral Transaxillary Permanent Pacemaker: Description of a Technique for Percutaneous Implantation of an “Invisible” Device

7.3 J (p=0.013). The correlation between the ULV50 and the DFT50 was significant (r=0.90, p<0.001 for voltage; r=0.93, P<0.001 for energy). ConclusionsAn upper limit of vulnerability is present in humans. There is a significant correlation between the ULV50. and the DITE50, and the ULV50 is significantly lower than the DFf50.

Acute effects of intravenous propafenone on the internal ventricular defibrillation threshold in the anesthetized dog

OBJECTIVES The study was performed to document that atrioventricular node reciprocating tachycardia (AVNRT) can be associated with eccentric retrograde left-sided activation, masquerading as tachycardia using a left accessory pathway. BACKGROUND The eccentric retrograde left-sided activation during tachycardia is thought to be diagnostic of the presence of a left free wall accessory pathway. However, it is not known whether AVNRT can occur with eccentric retrograde left-sided activation. METHODS We studied 356 patients with AVNRT who underwent catheter ablation. Retrograde atrial activation during tachycardia and ventricular pacing were determined by intracardiac recordings, including the use of a decapolar coronary sinus catheter. RESULTS The retrograde atrial activation was eccentric in 20 patients (6%). Eight of these patients had the earliest retrograde atrial activation recorded in the lateral coronary sinus leads, and 12 had the earliest retrograde atrial activation recorded in the posterior coronary sinus leads, with the most proximal coronary sinus electrode pair straddling the coronary sinus orifice. These tachycardias were either the fast-slow or the slow-slow form of AVNRT. The slow-fast form of AVNRT was also inducible in 17 of the 20 patients. Successful ablation of the slow pathway in the right atrial septum near the coronary sinus ostium prevented the induction and clinical recurrence of reciprocating tachycardia in all patients. CONCLUSIONS Atypical AVNRT with eccentric retrograde left-sided activation was demonstrated in 6% of all patients with AVNRT masquerading as tachycardia using a left-sided accessory pathway. Ablation of the slow pathway at the posterior aspects of the right atrial septum resulted in a cure in these patients.

Benefit and risks of long-term amiodarone therapy for sustained ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation: Minimum of three-year follow-up in 145 patients

BACKGROUND The upper limit of vulnerability is the stimulus strength above which electrical stimulation cannot induce ventricular fibrillation even when the stimulus occurs during the vulnerable period of the cardiac cycle. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that the upper limit of vulnerability can accurately predict the defibrillation threshold in patients undergoing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation using nonthoracotomy lead systems. METHODS AND RESULTS We studied 77 patients at the time of ICD implantation. Multiple endocardial-endocardial and endocardial-subcutaneous shock pathways were used. Two different protocols were used to test the upper limit of vulnerability. In protocol 1 (n = 17), the upper limit of vulnerability was tested with two shocks on the peak or the up-slope of the T wave of paced rhythm. The shocks were given randomly either at the peak and 20 milliseconds before the peak of T wave (n = 7) or at 20 and 40 milliseconds before the peak of T wave (n = 10). In protocol 2 (n = 60), the upper limit of vulnerability was tested with three shocks delivered at 0, 20, and 40 milliseconds before the peak of the T wave. The weakest shock that failed to induce ventricular fibrillation by a 5-J step-down or step-up method was defined as the upper limit of vulnerability. The defibrillation threshold was also determined by a 5-J step-down or step-up method. In protocol 1, the upper limit of vulnerability (9 +/- 6 J) was significantly lower than the defibrillation threshold (13 +/- 7 J) with a correlation coefficient of .87 and P < .001. In protocol 2, the upper limit of vulnerability (13 +/- 6 J) was not significantly different from the defibrillation threshold (13 +/- 6 J) with a correlation coefficient of .85 and P < .001. In 45 of the 60 patients, the upper limit of vulnerability was < or = 15 J; all had a defibrillation threshold of < or = 20 J. In 51 of the 60 patients, the upper limit of vulnerability was within 5 J of the defibrillation threshold. The upper limit of vulnerability overestimated the defibrillation threshold by > 10 J in 8 patients and underestimated the defibrillation threshold by > 10 J in only 1 patient. The overestimation and underestimation occurred only in patients with the upper limit of vulnerability > 15 J. CONCLUSIONS When tested with three shocks on and before the peak of the T wave, the upper limit of vulnerability accurately predicted the defibrillation threshold in patients undergoing ICD implantation using nonthoracotomy lead systems. This method required either one or no episodes of ventricular fibrillation in most patients.

Sinus node electrogram in patients with the hypersensitive carotid sinus syndrome

BACKGROUND A patient-specific measure of defibrillation efficacy that requires a minimum number of ventricular fibrillation (VF) episodes would be valuable for programming implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). The upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) is the weakest shock strength at or above which VF is not induced when a stimulus is delivered during the vulnerable phase of the cardiac cycle. It correlates with the defibrillation threshold (DFT) and can be determined with a single episode of VF. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that ICDs programmed on the basis of the ULV convert spontaneous ICD-detected VF reliably. METHODS AND RESULTS We studied 100 consecutive patients at ICD implantation and during follow-up of 20 +/- 7 months. At implantation, the ULV and DFT were determined, and the ICD system was tested at a shock strength equal to the ULV + 3 J. During follow-up, the strength of the first shock was programmed to the ULV + 5 J for arrhythmias detected in the VF zone (cycle length < 292 +/- 17 ms). We reviewed stored detection intervals and electrograms from spontaneous episodes of ICD-detected VF to determine the success rate for appropriate first shocks. The programmed first-shock strength was 17.5 +/- 5.2 J. During follow-up, there were 120 appropriate first shocks in 37 patients. The arrhythmia was rapid monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) in 70% of episodes (31 patients), VF in 11% (13 patients), polymorphic VT in 1%, and unclassified in 17% (15 patients). The first shock was successful in 119 of 120 episodes (99%; 95% CI, 93% to 100%). One unclassified episode required two shocks. No patient had syncope associated with an ICD shock or arrhythmic death. CONCLUSIONS ICD shocks can be programmed on the basis of the ULV, a measurement made in regular rhythm, without a direct measure of defibrillation efficacy.

Optimal electrode configuration for pectoral transvenous intplantable defibrillator without an active can

This report describes a percutaneous, transaxillary approach for implanting permanent pacemakers in the retropectoral space. This approach was used in 17 patients; indications for the procedure included the need to find a new implantation site in patients with infections and multiple previous pacemaker pocket sites (2 patients), emaciation and absence of sufficient adipose tissue (4 patients), and cosmetic considerations (11 patients). No complications were encountered during the implantation and the results were uniformly excellent in all patients. The pacemaker was “invisible” in each case. We conclude that a percutaneous approach for implanting permanent pacemakers in the retropectoral region is safe and feasible. This approach is likely to be applicable to the implantation of transvenous antitachycardia devices.