BackgroundDifferentiation between ventricular tachycardia (VT) and supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) with aberrancy based on the 12‑lead ECG alone can be imprecise. Implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICD) may be inserted for presumed VT, particularly in patients with syncopal presentation or atypical aberrancy patterns. Accurate diagnosis of these patients facilitated by an electrophysiology study (EPS) may alter diagnosis and management. MethodsWe present a prospective collection of cases across 3 cardiac centers of consecutive patients with WCT presumed to be VT who were referred for consideration of an ICD, and in whom further evaluation including an EPS ultimately demonstrated SVT with aberrancy as the culprit arrhythmia. Results22 patients were identified (17 male, mean age 50±13 years. Available rhythm data at the time of referral was presumptively diagnosed as monomorphic VT in 16 patients and polymorphic VT in 6 patients. Underlying structural heart disease was present in 20 (91%). EPS resulted in a diagnosis of SVT with aberrancy in all cases: comprising AV nodal re-entry tachycardia (n=10), orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia (n=3), focal atrial tachycardia (n=3), AF/AFL (n=3) and 'double fire' tachycardia (n=2). 21 (95%) patients underwent successful ablation. All patients remained free of arrhythmia recurrence at a median of 3.4 years of follow-up. ICD insertion was obviated in 18 (82%) patients, with 1 patient proceeding to ICD extraction. ConclusionSVT with atypical aberrancy may mimic monomorphic or polymorphic VT. Careful examination of all available rhythm data and consideration of an EPS can confirm SVT and obviate the need for ICD therapy.