{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034830430797433545, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018790100824931256, 'mean_word_length': 5.555555555555555, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 6, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Prognostic significance of electrical alternans versus signal averaged electrocardiography in predicting the outcome of electrophysiological testing and arrhythmia-free survival

Objective To investigate the accuracy of signal averaged electrocardiography (SAECG) and measurement of microvolt level T wave alternans as predictors of susceptibility to ventricular arrhythmias. Design Analysis of new data from a previously published prospective investigation. Setting Electrophysiology laboratory of a major referral hospital. Patients and interventions 43 patients, not on class I or class III antiarrhythmic drug treatment, undergoing invasive electrophysiological testing had SAECG and T wave alternans measurements. The SAECG was considered positive in the presence of one (SAECG-I) or two (SAECG-II) of three standard criteria. T wave alternans was considered positive if the alternans ratio exceeded 3.0. Main outcome measures Inducibility of sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation during electrophysiological testing, and 20 month arrhythmia-free survival. Results The accuracy of T wave alternans in predicting the outcome of electrophysiological testing was 84% (p < 0.0001). Neither SAECG-I (accuracy 60%; p < 0.29) nor SAECG-II (accuracy 71%; p < 0.10) was a statistically significant predictor of electrophysiological testing. SAECG, T wave alternans, electrophysiological testing, and follow up data were available in 36 patients while not on class I or III antiarrhythmic agents. The accuracy of T wave alternans in predicting the outcome of arrhythmia-free survival was 86% (p < 0.030). Neither SAECG-I (accuracy 65%; p < 0.21) nor SAECG-II (accuracy 71%; p < 0.48) was a statistically significant predictor of arrhythmia-free survival. Conclusions—T wave alternans was a highly significant predictor of the outcome of electrophysiological testing and arrhythmia-free survival, while SAECG was not a statistically significant predictor. Although these results need to be confirmed in prospective clinical studies, they suggest that T wave alternans may serve as a non-invasive probe for screening high risk populations for malignant ventricular arrhythmias.