The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Routine programmed electrical stimulation in survivors of acute myocardial infarction for prediction of spontaneous ventricular tachyarrhythmias during follow-up: Results, optimal stimulation protocol and cost-effective screening
Open accessAbstract
Of 3,286 consecutive patients treated for acute myocardial infarction, electrophysiologic testing was performed in 1,209 survivors (37%) free of significant complications at the time of hospital discharge to determine their risk of spontaneous ventricular tachyarrhythmias during follow-up. Sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia was inducible by programmed electrical stimulation in 75 (6.2%). Antiarrhythmic therapy was not routinely prescribed regardless of the test results. During the 1st year of follow-up, 14 infarct survivors (19%) with inducible ventricular tachycardia experienced spontaneous ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation in the absence of new ischemia compared with 34 (2.9%) of those without inducible ventricular tachycardia (p less than 0.0005). During the extended follow-up period (median 28 months) of those with inducible ventricular tachycardia, 19 (25%) had a spontaneous electrical event; 37% of these first events were fatal. These results suggest that the most cost-effective strategy for predicting arrhythmia will be obtained by restricting electrophysiologic testing to infarct survivors whose left ventricular ejection fraction is less than 40% and using a stimulation protocol containing four extrastimuli. Electrophysiologic testing is the single best predictor of spontaneous ventricular tachyarrhythmias during follow-up in infarct survivors. The majority (94%) with a negative test benefit from the more reliable reassurance that all is well, whereas the 25% risk of electrical events in those with inducible ventricular tachycardia justifies a prospective trial of effective prophylactic antiarrhythmic interventions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A Randomized Study of the Prevention of Sudden Death in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease
Buxton, A. E., Lee, K. L., Fisher, J. D., Josephson, M. E., Prystowsky, E. N., & Hafley, G. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199912163412503 · Cited by 2,489
Al-Khatib, S. M., Stevenson, W. G., Ackerman, M. J., Bryant, W. J., Callans, D. J., Curtis, A. B., Deal, B. J., Dickfeld, T., Field, M. E., Fonarow, G. C., et al. (2018) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000000548 · Cited by 412
Englund, A., Bergfeldt, L., Rehnqvist, N., Åström, H., & Rosenqvist, M. (1995) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/0735-1097(95)00354-1 · Cited by 96
Metadata
- Authors
- Bourke, J. P., Richards, D. A. B., Ross, D. L., Wallace, E. M., McGuire, M. A., & Uther, J. B.
- Venue
- Journal of the American College of Cardiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1991-09
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 780-788
- ISSN
- 0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1971196543
- Cited by
- 165
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Routine programmed electrical stimulation in survivors of acute myocardial infarction for prediction of spontaneous ventricular tachyarrhythmias during follow-up: Results, optimal stimulation protocol and cost-effective screening. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0735-1097(91)90802-g
- The paper
- Bourke, J. P., Richards, D. A. B., Ross, D. L., Wallace, E. M., McGuire, M. A., & Uther, J. B. (1991). Routine programmed electrical stimulation in survivors of acute myocardial infarction for prediction of spontaneous ventricular tachyarrhythmias during follow-up: Results, optimal stimulation protocol and cost-effective screening. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(91)90802-g
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.