To the Editor: We disagree with Dr. Mason's otherwise excellent review of amiodarone (Feb. 19 issue)1 that electrophysiologic study is best delayed for several weeks, that Hoher monitoring is not useful, and that special interpretive electrophysiologic criteria can be helpful. If programmed stimulation is to be “delayed for several weeks,” what is the clinician to do in the meantime? Sending patients home possibly unprotected is not desirable, and long-term telemetry monitoring is not usually feasible. Recent reviews2,3 on programmed stimulation with amiodarone using conventional end points of inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias versus a non-inducible state indicate very high sensitivity (95 percent). © 1987, Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Amiodarone
Costante G.;
1987-01-01
Abstract
To the Editor: We disagree with Dr. Mason's otherwise excellent review of amiodarone (Feb. 19 issue)1 that electrophysiologic study is best delayed for several weeks, that Hoher monitoring is not useful, and that special interpretive electrophysiologic criteria can be helpful. If programmed stimulation is to be “delayed for several weeks,” what is the clinician to do in the meantime? Sending patients home possibly unprotected is not desirable, and long-term telemetry monitoring is not usually feasible. Recent reviews2,3 on programmed stimulation with amiodarone using conventional end points of inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias versus a non-inducible state indicate very high sensitivity (95 percent). © 1987, Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
