Defining the pattern of initiation of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia using the beat-to-beat intervals recorded on implantable cardioverter defibrillators from the RAFT study: A computer-based algorithm.

Arrhythmia onset pattern may have important implications on morbidity, recurrent implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks, and mortality, given the proposed correlation between initiation pattern and arrhythmia mechanism. Therefore, we developed and tested a computer-based algorithm to differentiate the pattern of initiation based on the beat-to-beat intervals of the ventricular tachycardia (VT) episodes in ICD recordings from the Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT). Intervals on intracardiac electrograms from ICDs were analyzed backwards starting from the marker of VT detection, comparing each interval with the average tachycardia cycle length. If the morphology of the beat initiating the VT was similar to the morphology of the VT itself, the episode was considered sudden. If the morphology of the beat initiating the VT was not similar to the morphology of the VT itself, the episode was considered non-sudden. The capability of the algorithm to classify the pattern of initiation based only on the beat-to-beat intervals allows for the classification and analysis of large datasets to further investigate the clinical importance of classifying VT initiation. If analysis of the VT initiation proves to be of clinical value, this algorithm could potentially be integrated into ICD software, which would make it easily accessible and potentially helpful in clinical decision-making.

Purkinje-related arrhythmias part I: monomorphic ventricular tachycardias.

Purkinje-related monomorphic ventricular tachycardias (VTs) can be classified into four distinct groups: (1) verapamil-sensitive left fascicular VT, (2) Purkinje fiber-mediated VT post infarction, (3) bundle branch reentry (BBR) and interfascicular reentry VTs, and (4) focal Purkinje VT. There are three subtypes of fascicular VTs: (1) left posterior fascicular VT with a right bundle branch block (RBBB) configuration and superior axis; (2) left anterior fascicular VT with an RBBB configuration and right-axis deviation; and (3) upper septal fascicular VT with a narrow QRS configuration. The mechanism of the fascicular VT is macroreentry. While the antegrade limb of the circuit is a midseptal abnormal Purkinje fiber in the anterior and posterior fascicular VTs, the antegrade limb of the upper septal fascicular VT is both the anterior and posterior fascicles, and the retrograde limb is a midseptal abnormal Purkinje fiber. Purkinje fiber-mediated VT post infarction also exhibits verapamil sensitivity, and the surviving muscle bundles within the myocardium and Purkinje system are components of the reentry circuit. BBR-VT and interfascicular reentry VT are amenable to being cured by the creation of bundle or fascicular block. The mechanism of focal Purkinje VT is abnormal automaticity from the distal Purkinje system, and the ablation target is the earliest Purkinje activation during the VT. It is difficult to distinguish verapamil-sensitive fascicular VT from focal Purkinje VT by the 12-lead electrocardiogram; however, focal Purkinje VT is not responsive to verapamil . The recognition of the heterogeneity of these VTs and their unique characteristics should facilitate an appropriate diagnosis and therapy.

Long-term outcome of patients who received implantable cardioverter defibrillators for stable ventricular tachycardia.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence is inconclusive concerning the role of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) to treat patients with hemodynamically stable ventricular tachycardia (VT). The goal of this study was to estimate future risk of unstable ventricular arrhythmias in patients who received ICDs for stable VT. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed complete ICD follow-up data from 82 patients (age 66.1 +/- 11.3 years; left ventricular ejection fraction 32.3%+/- 11.2%; mean +/- SD) who received ICDs for stable VT. During the follow-up period of 23.6 +/- 21.5 months (mean +/- SD), 15 patients (18%) died, and 10 (12%) developed unstable ventricular arrhythmia, 8 of whom had the unstable arrhythmia as the first arrhythmia after ICD placement. Estimated 2- and 4-year survival in the whole group was 80% and 74%, respectively. Estimated 2- and 4-year probability of any VT and unstable VT was 67% and 77% and 11% and 25%, respectively. There were no differences in age, ejection fraction, sex, underlying heart disease, cycle length, symptoms, baseline electrophysiologic study results, or QRS characteristics of qualifying VT between patients who developed unstable ventricular arrhythmia and patients who did not. Twenty-nine patients (35%) had at least one inappropriate shock, and 11 (13%) underwent further surgery for ICD-related complications. CONCLUSION: Patients who present with hemodynamically stable VT are at risk for subsequent unstable VT. ICD treatment offers potential salvage of patients with stable VT who subsequently develop unstable VT/ventricular fibrillation, although complications and inappropriate shocks are considerable. No predictors could be found for high and low risk for unstable arrhythmias. These findings support ICD treatment for stable VT survivors.