Background-We sought to determine the potential of right ventricular VVI backup pacing to induce ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with implanted cardioverter-defibrillators. Methods and Results-All consecutive patients presenting exclusively with pacemaker-induced tachycardias (PITs) were included in a prospective study using a crossover protocol. Patients were randomized to either group 1 (augmentation of the baseline frequency of the pacemaker to 60 bpm) or group 2 (pacemaker turned off) and were followed up for 1 year and then crossed over to the other programming, looking for reoccurrence of PIT. Of 150 consecutive patients, 39 (26%) had PIT, 13 of them exclusively (8.6%). Forty of 1063 analyzed tachyarrhythmias of all the patients were PIT (3%). Before inclusion in the study, the patients had 2.7Ϯ0.9 PITs in 11Ϯ6.5 months with their pacemakers programmed empirically at 42.3 bpm. During the study phase, no PIT occurred while the pacemaker was turned off, whereas programming to 60 bpm led to the recurrence of PIT in 5 of 6 patients (1.4Ϯ0.6 per patient). At the end of the study, 9 patients underwent a prolonged follow-up with their pacemakers turned off, resulting in spontaneous episodes of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation in 5 patients, but PITs were no longer observed. Conclusions-This crossover protocol proves the potential proarrhythmic effect of pacemaker stimulation in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients. Resulting PITs led to clinical symptoms and antitachycardia therapy by the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Thus, in patients presenting with PIT but without a pacemaker indication, the pacemaker feature should be turned off, or, alternatively, the longest possible escape interval should be programmed.

The aim of this study was to show how to find the preferable implantation site for an ECG event recorder (ECG-ER). We compared the quality of bipolar ECG recordings (4-cm electrode distance, vertical position) in 65 patients at the following sites: left and right subclavicular, left and right anterior axillary line (4th-5th interspace), left and right of the sternum (4th-5th interspace), heart apex, and subxyphoidal. The results were compared to the standard ECG lead II. In 30 patients, an additional comparison between vertical and horizontal ECG registrations was done using the same sites. ECG signals in five patients were compared positioning the electrodes towards the skin with turning them towards the muscle during ECG-ER implantation. The best ECG quality (defined as highest QRS amplitude, best visible P wave and/or pacemaker spike, best measurable QRS duration, and QT interval) and best agreement with the standard lead II was found in 68% on the left of the sternum, significantly less often (P < 0.001) on the right of the sternum (14.1%), left subclavicular (6.9%), apical (5.5%) and subxyphoidal (4.2%). A significantly higher QRS amplitude was measured and the P wave was more often visible in the vertical electrode position than in the horizontal position. In all five ECG-ER patients, there was a good agreement between the bipolar surface ECG at the implantation site and ECG-ER stored signals. A significant noise signal occurred in all five patients when the ECG-ER was implanted with electrodes towards the muscle. A P wave was visible in only three of those patients, but there was an insignificantly higher QRS amplitude than in ECG-ERs implanted with electrodes towards the skin. From these results, it can be concluded that the best implantation site for an ECG-ER is right or left of the sternum, positioning the electrodes vertically and towards the skin.