Differences in ventricular tachyarrythmias and antitachycardia pacing effectiveness according to the ICD indication (primary versus secondary prevention): an analysis based on the stored electrograms.

PURPOSE: To determine whether monomorphic ventricular tachycardias (VTs) have different characteristics and/or responses to antitachycardia pacing (ATP) with respect to the indication-primary prevention (PP) versus secondary prevention (SP)-among ICD patients with left ventricular dysfunction.

METHODS: We prospectively studied 551 VT (cycle length [CL] 329 ± 35 ms; PP 34%) occurring in 67 ICD patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVEF 35 ± 8%). ICD programming was standardized, including ATP for slow (CL 400-321 ms) and fast VT (CL 250-320 ms). We analyzed the following aspects: CL, percentage of variability of the 12 RR intervals prior to ATP (P-RR)-which was calculated by dividing the mean difference between each R-R interval with the next one by the CL × 100-and type of termination: immediate (VT ceased immediately upon ATP completion) or delayed (VT persisted after ATP).

RESULTS: ATP was successful in 86% of VTs. VTs occurring in SP patients had a lower P-RR, median (IQR) 2.7% (1.2-3.7) versus 1.9% (0.9-3.2); p = 0.002; they terminated immediately after ATP less frequently (27% versus 12%; p < 0.001), and although they were more frequently slow (51% versus 67%; p = 0.01), ATP was less effective in them, 92 versus 80% (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS: VTs occurring in SP patients are slower, more stable, and they terminate less frequently at ATP. Therefore, compared with PP, SP patients seem to have fewer self-terminating VTs.