Premium
Value of Programmed Ventricular Stimulation in Patients with Congenital Heart Disease
Author(s) -
ALEXANDER MARK E.,
WALSH EDWARD P.,
SAUL J. PHILIP,
EPSTEIN MICHAEL R.,
TRIEDMAN JOHN K.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.193
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1540-8167
pISSN - 1045-3873
DOI - 10.1111/j.1540-8167.1999.tb00274.x
Subject(s) - medicine , cardiology , heart disease , supraventricular tachycardia , tetralogy of fallot , ventricular tachycardia , atrial flutter , supraventricular arrhythmia , univariate analysis , tachycardia , multivariate analysis , atrial fibrillation
Ventricular Stimulation in Congenital Heart Disease, introduction: The role of programmed ventricular stimulation (VSTIM) for risk stratification in congenital heart disease is unclear. We analyzed the results of VSTIM in selected congenital heart disease survivors at a single center lo determine whether it improved the ability to predict a serious outcome. Methods and Results: Between July 1985 and September 1996. 140 primary VSTIM studies were performed on 130 patients (median age 18.1 years, range 0 to 51). Tetralogy of Fallot (33%), d‐transposition of the great arteries (25%), and left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (12%) accounted for the majority of patients. Indications included spontaneous ventricular tachycardia (VT) of ≥ 3 beats (72%) and/or symptoms (68%). Sustained VT was induced in 25% of the studies, and nonsustained VT in 12%. Atrial flutter or other supraventricular tachycardia was documented in 32% and bradyarrhythmias in 26%. By univariate analysis, mortality was increased in patients with positive VSTIM versus negative VSTIM (18% vs 7%, P = 0.04). Using multivariate analysis, positive VSTIM was associated with a sixfold increased risk of decreased survival and a threefold increased risk of serious arrhythmic events, allowing up to 87% sensitivity in predicting mortality. However, 7 (33%) of 21 patients with documented clinical VT had false‐negative studies. Conclusion: VSTIM in a large, selected group of congenital heart disease patients identified a subgroup with significantly increased mortality and sudden arrhythmic events. Failure to induce VT was a favorable prognostic sign, but the frequency of false‐negative studies was high. Frequent supraventricular tachycardia further complicated risk stratification. Although VSTIM appears to be a reasonable tool for evaluation of this population, a larger, multicenter trial is recommended to clarify its utility.