Programmed electrical stimulation in XXXX : how reproducible are the results?

@entity1 @entity1789 @entity1788 @entity146 @entity943
INTRODUCTION: Inducibility of @entity943 at programmed electrical stimulation (PES) ranges between 50% and 80% of @entity1 with @entity1789 . However, the variety of PES protocols and the lack of data relative to a control group or to @entity943 reproducibility contribute to a still undefined interpretation of PES outcome in @entity1789 . METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-one @entity1 with @entity1789 (18 @entity1 and 3 @entity1 ; mean age 34 years; 9/21 symptomatic; 8/21 with @entity1788 gene mutation) underwent a PES protocol from two right ventricular sites. The endpoint was PES protocol completion or induction of sustained or reproducible (>6 consecutive inductions) nonsustained (>6 beats) fast @entity943 . In 17 of 21 @entity1 with @entity1789 , PES was repeated 2 months later to test @entity943 reproducibility. Twenty-five healthy @entity1 (17 @entity1 ; mean age 36 years) formed the control group. In @entity1 with @entity1789 , @entity943 inducibility rate at PES was high (18/21 @entity1 [85%]) and increased with protocol @entity146 , independent of clinical presentation. In control subjects, no @entity943 were induced. Among @entity1 with @entity1789 , 14 (82%) of 17 @entity1 remained inducible at a second PES. CONCLUSION: In our experience, @entity943 inducibility in @entity1 with @entity1789 , at variance with healthy controls, is high and does not correlate with clinical presentation. PES inducibility is deeply influenced by the protocol used. PES outcome is reproducible at a mid-term follow-up mainly if a categorical endpoint (inducible vs noninducible) is used. The need to assess the predictive value of specific PES protocols in targeted studies is widely emerging and is confirmed by our results.
