Swerdlow C D, Blum J, Winkle R A, Griffin J C, Ross D L, Mason J W
Am Heart J. 1982 Nov;104(5 Pt 1):1004-11. doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(82)90432-x.
Drug trials during electrophysiologic study were performed in 166 patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation. In the first 21 patients (group I), a maximum of two extrastimuli was used. In 145 subsequent patients (group II), drug efficacy was assessed using three extrastimuli if one or two failed to induce VT. The incidence of acute drug efficacy was 15 of 21 (71%) in group I, but only 44 of 145 (30%) in group II (p less than 0.01). To assess the influence of the third extrastimulus on the differing incidence of acute drug efficacy, we examined the 69 group II patients whose VT was initially induced by one or two extrastimuli. Acutely effective agents were identified for 19 of these 69 patients using up to three extrastimuli to define efficacy. In 24 of te 50 patients for whom no effective drug could be found, VT was induced with one or two extrastimuli during all drug trials. In the remaining 26 patients VT could be induced after drug administration only with use of three extrastimuli. If efficacy had been defined using a maximum of two extrastimuli, these 26 patients would have been considered responsive to drug testing. Overall, 45 to 69 (65%) rather than 19 of 69 (28%) would have had a favorable response (p less than 0.001). Fourteen group I patients and 17 group II patients in whom VT was initially induced by one or two extrastimuli received chronic therapy with agents predicted effective during acute drug trials. At 18 months, the cumulative percent of patients free of arrhythmia recurrence by actuarial analysis was 79 +/- 14% in group I and 80 +/- 14% in group II (NS). Use of three extrastimuli during drug trials is associated with a lower incidence of acute drug efficacy. Limited data suggest that prophylaxis against VT induction by three, rather than two, extrastimuli may not be a stronger predictor of chronic efficacy in patients whose VT is initially induced by one or two extrastimuli. Further study is needed to identify optimal pacing methods for antiarrhythmic drug assessment.
在166例持续性室性心动过速(VT)或心室颤动患者中进行了电生理研究期间的药物试验。在前21例患者(I组)中,最多使用两个额外刺激。在随后的145例患者(II组)中,如果一或两个额外刺激未能诱发室性心动过速,则使用三个额外刺激评估药物疗效。I组急性药物疗效的发生率为21例中的15例(71%),而II组仅为145例中的44例(30%)(p<0.01)。为了评估第三个额外刺激对急性药物疗效不同发生率的影响,我们检查了II组中最初由一或两个额外刺激诱发室性心动过速的69例患者。在这69例患者中,使用多达三个额外刺激来定义疗效,为其中19例患者确定了急性有效药物。在50例未发现有效药物的患者中,有24例在所有药物试验期间用一或两个额外刺激诱发了室性心动过速。在其余26例患者中,仅在使用三个额外刺激时给药后才能诱发室性心动过速。如果使用最多两个额外刺激来定义疗效,这26例患者将被认为对药物测试有反应。总体而言,69例中的45至69例(65%)而非69例中的19例(28%)会有良好反应(p<0.001)。I组和II组中最初由一或两个额外刺激诱发室性心动过速的14例I组患者和17例II组患者接受了在急性药物试验期间预测有效的药物的长期治疗。在18个月时,通过精算分析无心律失常复发的患者累积百分比在I组为79±14%,在II组为80±14%(无显著性差异)。药物试验期间使用三个额外刺激与急性药物疗效的发生率较低相关。有限的数据表明,对于最初由一或两个额外刺激诱发室性心动过速的患者,防止由三个而非两个额外刺激诱发室性心动过速可能不是慢性疗效的更强预测指标。需要进一步研究以确定抗心律失常药物评估的最佳起搏方法。