The Relationship between Pacing Site and Induction or Termination of Sustained Monomorphic Ventricular Tachycardia by Antitachycardia Pacing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the development of left ventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization, there is an interest in the possibility of improving ventricular antitachycardia pacing (ATP) efficacy by pacing from the LV electrode(s). OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the efficacy of pacing delivered from the left coronary vein (LCV) compared to that delivered from the right ventricular apex (RVA) upon ventricular tachycardia (VT) induction and termination. METHODS: Sixty patients undergoing provocative ventricular electrophysiology (EP) studies in three centers were enrolled. Multipolar EP catheters were placed in the atrium, the RVA, and LCV. VT induction was attempted from the RVA and LCV in random order. Upon detection of monomorphic VT, burst ATP for up to 10 pulses at 88% VT cycle length was delivered from the RVA or LCV, in a random order, and crossed over when possible. Identical VT morphologies were reinduced to allow paired comparison of RVA versus LCV ATP. RESULTS: Data from 55 patients were analyzed. Thirty-four morphologically distinct monomorphic VT types were induced in 22 patients. ATP succeeded in 18 (55%) and VTs in 13 patients. RVA ATP terminated 15 of 23 (65%) VTs, and LCV ATP terminated 10 of 23 (43%) VTs (P = 0.14). ATP delivered ipsilateral to the earliest activation site required 5.0 + or - 2.6 pulses to terminate compared to 4.8 + or - 1.7 pulses when delivered from the contralateral site (P = 0.90). Paired comparison was possible for 13 VT morphologies in 11 patients. Paired RVA and LCV ATP efficacy was identical (54%vs 54%, P = 1.0). CONCLUSION: ATP delivered from a LCV lead offers no efficacy advantage over pacing from the RVA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".