[How to approach the patient with supraventricular tachycardia in the EP lab: A systematic overview]. / Diagnostik bei supraventrikulären Tachykardien : Wie ist das Vorgehen im elektrophysiologischen Labor?

The term supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) summarizes those tachycardias involving the atrial myocardium along with the atrioventricular (AV) node. The prevalence is about 2.25 per 1000 (without atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter) and, therefore, SVT represents one of the most common group of arrhythmias besides atrial fibrillation encountered in the emergency department especially since they tend to recur until definite therapy. The clinical symptoms may include palpitations, anxiety, presyncope, angina, and dyspnea. Pharmacological therapy of these arrhythmias often fails. The present article deals with the differential diagnosis of SVT and also introduces a series of manuscripts that provide detailed insight into the differential diagnosis and treatment of these arrhythmias.

[Is the determination of the defibrillation threshold in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator still required?]. / Wird die Bestimmung der Defibrillationsschwelle bei Patienten mit implantierbarem Kardioverter/Defibrillator noch benötigt?

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative testing of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) is time consuming and associated with risks. In the present study, we elucidated whether the initial implantation of an ICD with high energy output makes intraoperative defibrillation threshold testing (DFTT) unnecessary even though antiarrhythmic (AA) therapy is needed in the future. METHODS: A total of 111 patients (94 men, 17 women) receiving an ICD with subsequent AA therapy (mexiletine, amiodarone, sotalol, flecainide) were analyzed retrospectively. DFT was performed during ICD implantation and after AA drug therapy. In a second step, DFT results from the study cohort were analyzed for implantation of virtual ICDs with either low (≤ 30 J, LOD), intermediate (34 J, IOD), or high energy output (36 J, HOD). RESULTS: In the study cohort, all patients reached the safety margin (SM) of 10 J between DFT and maximal shock energy of the ICD. After loading of AA agents, 6 patients (12%) with a LOD, 3 patients (11%) with an IOD, and 3 (13%) patients with a HOD failed the 10 J SM. Using virtual ICDs, 6 (5.5%) patients with a LOD, 1 patient (1%) with an IOD, and no patients with a HOD would have failed the 10 J SM. After loading of AA agents, 18 patients (16%) with a virtual LOD, 12 patients (10.8%) with an IOD, and still 9 patients (8%) with a HOD would have failed the 10 J SM. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that the 10 J SM would have been achieved intraoperatively in all patients with virtual HOD ICDs. Thus, determination of the DFT during implantation does not seem to be obligatory. However, in patients receiving AA agents, DFT testing is still required.