Immediate evaluation and management Patients with sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (SMVT) demonstrate a wide range of clinical presentations, from essentially asymptomatic to critically ill. The rate of the tachycardia is the major determinant of the degree of hemodynamic compromise, although the extent of structural heart disease is also important. The acuity of the immediate management is dictated by the severity of the symptoms. Immediate synchronous cardioversion is indicated for the hypotensive, unconscious patient; acute cardioversion is also used after adequate sedation is obtained in conscious but symptomatic patients. Lidocaine infusion has been advocated for patients with well tolerated SMVT, mostly based on analogy to its usefulness in preventing VF in acute myocardial infarction. Several recent studies have that lidocaine is infrequently successful in terminating SMVT. Only 10 of 121 episodes of induced and 0 of 27 spontaneous SMVT terminated with lidocaine infusion in a study by Nasir et al.1 In a small randomized study,2 sotalol (100 mg IV over 5 minutes) converted 69% of SMVT episodes compared to 18% with lidocaine. In unusual cases, recognized by characteristic electrocardiographic manifestations and the absence of structural heart disease (Fig. 1), episodes of SMVT can be treated with medications typically reserved for treating supraventricular arrhythmias, such as adenosine, calcium antagonists and beta-blockers. The need for diagnostic certainty before using agents that could produce hypotension during SMVT cannot be overstated. After termination of the presenting episode, the acute management centers on the prevention of SMVT recurrence. In the majority of cases (digitalis intoxication is one exception) SMVT is the consequence of a permanent electrical substrate. Although it is prudent to investigate and correct contributing factors such as electrolyte abnormalities and acute ischemia, these factors can serve as triggers but not as the proximate cause of the arrhythmia. Lidocaine is often administered continuously after an episode of SMVT, and is may be helpful in selected patients following acute infarction or cardiac surgery. In light of the signi~cant potential for side effects and particularly because most patients with SMVT have infrequent recurrences, antiarrhythmic drugs should not be given re_exively after a single SMVT episode. The unusual patient with multiple acute recurrent episodes of SMVT is often critically ill and very dif~cult to control. Several recent multicenter studies con~rmed previous case reports of the ef~cacy of intravenous amiodarone in the treatment of recurrent, poorly tolerated SMVT.3–5 A dose ranging study by Levine and coworkers3 enrolled 273 patients who had previously failed treatment with lidocaine, procainamide and bretylium. In this extremely high risk group, the initial infusion of intravenous amiodarone (500–2100 mg/24 hours) prevented SMVT recurrence in 40.3%. In the remainder, supplemental doses of amiodarone or addition of another agent often resulted in arrhythmia control. The most frequently encountered acute side effects were hypotension (15%) and bradycardia (5%). Despite this encouraging success, the 24 hour and 90 day allcause mortality in this cohort was 19 and 52%, respectively; the cause of death in just under 50% of patients was refractory VT/VF. In patients with frequently recurring or incessant well tolerated SMVT, particularly if acute attempts at antiarrhythmic drug therapy fails, catheter ablation in the acute setting can be helpful.6 In patients with refractory, poorly tolerated SMVT emergent subendocardial resection has been performed with some degree of success. The second component of the acute management of patients with SMVT involves assessment of the nature and extent of underlying structural heart disease (Table 1). The purpose of this determination is twofold. First, patients with SMVT in the absence of structural heart disease need to be promptly identi~ed as their prognosis, therapeutic options and response to therapy is much different than patients
Read full abstract