Serum Potassium and Defibrillator Shocks. Introduction: Electrolyte abnormalities are considered a correctable cause of a life‐threatening ventricular arrhythmia according to American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Practice Guidelines, and ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation in the setting of an electrolyte abnormality is considered a class III indication for defibrillator implantation. However, there are little data to support this recommendation. The purpose of this study was to determine the risk of a recurrent sustained ventricular arrhythmia in patients with a low serum potassium concentration at the time of an initial episode of a sustained ventricular arrhythmia. Methods and Results: One hundred sixty‐nine consecutive patients who presented with a sustained ventricular arrhythmia and a serum potassium concentration determined on the day of the arrhythmia underwent defibrillator implantation. All patients had structural heart disease and left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.32 ± 0.15. On the day of the index arrhythmia, 30% of the patients had a serum potassium concentration < 3.5 or > 5.0 mEq/L, including 7% who had a serum potassium concentration < 3.0 or > 6.0 mEq/L. For the entire cohort of patients, freedom from a recurrent sustained ventricular arrhythmia was 18% at 5 years and was not significantly different among patients with a serum potassium concentration < 3.5 mEq/L (23%), between 3.5 and 5.0 mEq/L (16%), and > 5.0 mEq/L ( 5%; P = 0.1 ). Conclusion: The results of the present study suggest that patients with structural heart disease and an abnormal serum potassium concentration at the time of an initial episode of sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation are at high risk for a recurrent ventricular arrhythmia; therefore, implantable defibrillator therapy may be reasonable.
Electrocardiographic artifact can simulate ventricular tachycardia. The literature regarding electrocardiographic artifact is limited to case reports,1–7 proposed classifications,8,9 and diagnostic criteria.10 There is little information regarding the clinical implications of the misdiagnosis of artifact as ventricular tachycardia. We describe 12 patients who underwent unnecessary diagnostic or therapeutic interventions as a result of such a misdiagnosis. Methods We included in this series patients who were seen in consultation by a cardiac electrophysiologist at our institution between 1995 and 1999 and who underwent a diagnostic procedure or received treatment unnecessarily, solely as a result of the misdiagnosis of artifact as . . .