ArticleMedicine international
Refractory ventricular tachycardia storm with 42 ICD shocks in 24 h: A case report.
Article in Medicine international. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An electrical storm (ES) represents a critical arrhythmic emergency, often associated with high morbidity and mortality rates in patients with underlying structural heart disease. Despite therapeutic advancements, its management remains challenging. The present case report describes an exceptional case of ES marked by 42 appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks within a period of 24 h, one of the highest documented burdens underscoring the limitations of conventional therapy and the importance of timely interventional strategies. A 71-year-old male patient with ischemic cardiomyopathy and prior MitraClip implantation presented with recurrent ICD shocks. Despite optimized device programming and dual antiarrhythmic therapy (amiodarone and lidocaine), he experienced 42 appropriate ICD discharges in a single day. His course rapidly progressed to severe hemodynamic instability, necessitating intubation, mechanical ventilation, deep sedation, and neuromuscular blockade. Telemetry demonstrated the transient suppression of ventricular tachycardia with pacing, followed in select episodes by degeneration into ventricular fibrillation, likely reflecting underlying substrate instability rather than device malfunction or direct pacing-induced proarrhythmia. This pattern suggested complex device-arrhythmia interactions and provided diagnostic insight. Following the failure of all conventional treatments, the patient was transferred for urgent electrophysiological intervention including catheter ablation and bilateral cardiac sympathetic denervation. Unfortunately, the patient did not survive. This case highlights an extreme and refractory form of ES in a patient with structural heart disease. The severity and resistance to medical therapy reinforce the need for early recognition and timely escalation to interventional approaches such as ablation and sympathetic denervation. Additionally, the captured telemetry offers unique electrophysiological insight into pacing-triggered ventricular arrhythmogenesis. The present case report contributes valuable clinical and diagnostic learning for physicians managing complex ventricular arrhythmias in advanced cardiac patients.
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.