Klein L S, Fineberg N, Heger J J, Miles W M, Kammerling J M, Chang M S, Zipes D P, Prystowsky E N
Krannert Institute of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis.
Am J Cardiol. 1988 May 1;61(13):1024-30. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(88)90119-1.
Induction of ventricular tachycardia (VT) at electrophysiologic study in patients taking amiodarone poorly predicts recurrence of VT. Consequently, a discriminant function was developed (using parameters based on retrospective data) that appeared to identify high-risk patients. These parameters included ventricular effective refractory period, corrected QT interval, initiation of a repetitive ventricular response and the mode of VT induction. In the present study these parameters were prospectively evaluated in 60 patients with coronary artery disease and sustained VT or ventricular fibrillation (VF), in whom VT was still induced at electrophysiologic study during amiodarone therapy. Thirteen patients had recurrent events (sudden death in 8 and sustained VT in 5) and 47 patients had no symptomatic arrhythmia recurrence (follow-up for 16 +/- 2 months, mean +/- standard error of the mean). The ventricular effective refractory period, corrected QT interval and presence of a repetitive ventricular response did not discriminate between patients with and without symptomatic arrhythmia recurrence. However, an easier mode of VT induction during amiodarone therapy versus control was highly predictive of arrhythmia recurrence: 9 of 13 (69%) recurrences were in this group. In contrast, only 4 of 44 (9%) patients who had either the same or harder mode of VT induction had a recurrent event. Overall, 9 of 16 (56%) patients with an easier mode of VT induction had a recurrence, including 6 of the 8 patients with subsequent sudden cardiac death. It is concluded that electrophysiologic testing during amiodarone therapy is useful to identify high-risk patients.
在接受胺碘酮治疗的患者中,电生理研究诱发室性心动过速(VT)对VT复发的预测性较差。因此,开发了一种判别函数(基于回顾性数据的参数),似乎可以识别高危患者。这些参数包括心室有效不应期、校正QT间期、重复性心室反应的起始以及VT诱发方式。在本研究中,对60例冠心病合并持续性VT或心室颤动(VF)的患者进行了前瞻性评估,这些患者在胺碘酮治疗期间的电生理研究中仍能诱发VT。13例患者发生复发事件(8例猝死,5例持续性VT),47例患者无有症状的心律失常复发(随访16±2个月,平均±平均标准误差)。心室有效不应期、校正QT间期和重复性心室反应的存在并不能区分有无有症状心律失常复发的患者。然而,与对照组相比,胺碘酮治疗期间VT诱发方式更容易高度预测心律失常复发:13例复发患者中有9例(69%)属于该组。相比之下,VT诱发方式相同或更难的44例患者中只有4例(9%)发生复发事件。总体而言,VT诱发方式更容易的16例患者中有9例(56%)复发,包括8例随后发生心源性猝死患者中的6例。结论是,胺碘酮治疗期间的电生理检查有助于识别高危患者。