ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2021
Anti-tachycardia pacing for non-fast and fast ventricular tachycardias in individual Japanese patients: From Nippon-storm study.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antitachycardia Pacing for Fast Scar-Mediated Ventricular Tachycardia Across Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathies: A Case Series.International medical case reports journal · 2026Article
- "Carryover phenomenon" in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: Residual energy caused early shock to subsequent ventricular tachycardia.Journal of arrhythmia · 2022Article
- A real-world experience of subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardiac defibrillators-comparison with the PRAETORIAN study.Journal of arrhythmia · 2022Article
- Anti-tachycardia pacing for non-fast and fast ventricular tachycardias in individual Japanese patients: From Nippon-storm study.Journal of arrhythmia · 2021Article
- Article
- Japan Implantable Devices in Coronary Artery Disease (JID-CAD) study design.Journal of arrhythmia · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) delivered from an implantable device is a useful tool to terminate ventricular tachycardia (VT). But its real-world efficacy for those patients having multiple VTs with varying VT rates has not been fully studied.
methodsUsing the Nippon-storm study database, efficacy of patient-by-patient basis ATP programing for Japanese patients having both non-fast (120-187 bpm) and fast VT (≥188 bpm) was assessed. According to the useful criteria of ≥50% success termination by ATP, patients were divided into three subgroups; success ≥50% for both non-fast and fast VT (both useful), ≥50% only for non-fast VT (non-fast VT useful), or ≥50% for neither non-fast nor fast VT (neither useful).
resultsDuring a median follow-up of 28 months, ATP terminated 184 of the 203 non-fast VT episodes (91%) and 86 of the 113 fast VT episodes (76%) in all 41 patients. In the patient-by-patient analysis, efficacy of ATP was not different between non-fast and fast VT in most of the patients (36/41 = 88%); 32 patients were in the both useful and four other patients in the neither useful. Neither ischemic nor non-ischemic structural heart disease was associated with the ATP efficacy, whereas LVEF more than 37.0% and non-prescribed amiodarone were characteristics of the patients classified into the both useful.
conclusionsATP well terminated both non-fast and fast VT occurring in individual Japanese patients with various structural heart diseases in the real-world device treatment and this finding further supports ATP programing for all device tachycardia detection zones in most patients with multiple VTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.