<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Ventricular Tachycardia on ECG Library – LITFL Basics</title>
    <link>https://ecgvn.com/en/tags/ventricular-tachycardia/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Ventricular Tachycardia on ECG Library – LITFL Basics</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 May 2023 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://ecgvn.com/en/tags/ventricular-tachycardia/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>VT versus SVT: It’s as easy as ABCDE</title>
      <link>https://ecgvn.com/en/posts/vt-versus-svt-its-as-easy-as-abcde/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 May 2023 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://ecgvn.com/en/posts/vt-versus-svt-its-as-easy-as-abcde/</guid>
      <description>&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;VT or not VT…that is the question&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Most of us know this question all to well. We are also probably familiar with the long list of ECG features “suggestive” of ventricular tachycardia (VT). Unfortunately, this list is not always intuitive, and can be difficult to recall and apply under pressure on the floor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;How can we simplify things?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I’ve spent the last few days coming up with a more easily applicable approach to this common dilemma.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
