[Programmed stimulation in patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmia. II: Individual optimization of anti-arrhythmia therapy].

Abstract

The major purpose of programmed ventricular stimulation in patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmias (sustained ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation) is not the diagnostic or prognostic evaluation but the individual optimization of antiarrhythmic therapy. For successful antiarrhythmic treatment, the choice of an adequate parameter of efficacy is of outstanding relevance: in patients with frequent daily episodes of malignant ventricular arrhythmias, proper treatment can be based on Holter monitoring; however, in patients with infrequent but life-threatening attacks, Holter monitory appears to be inadequate and programmed stimulation is the method of choice for proper treatment decisions. A total of 394 serial pharmaco-electrophysiological studies was performed in 82 patients with inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. During the acute serial studies, one drug was tested each subsequent day using short-term intravenous infusions. The only criterion for drug efficacy was prevention of inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation that had been reproducibly initiated under control conditions before antiarrhythmic treatment. At least one preventive drug was found in approximately 2/3rd of the patients. Following serial acute studies using intravenous administration, an effective agent was selected and given orally. Programmed stimulation was repeated usually after three days demonstrating reproducibility of preventive efficacy in 90% of the trials. During a subsequent follow-up period of an average of 15 months, the number of acute events (9%) including sudden death or life-threatening recurrences of malignant ventricular arrhythmias was significantly reduced as compared to patients with non-optimized therapy (54%; p less than 0.05). The number of cardiac deaths due to progressive heart failures was not significantly different in patients placed on optimized or non-optimized antiarrhythmic treatment.