Search

Background: Ventricular overdrive pacing (VOP) produces reset during the transition zone (TZ) of QRS fusion in orthodromic reentrant tachycardia (ORT) and after the TZ in atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT), and this represents a simple diagnostic maneuver to differentiate the two tachycardia mechanisms., Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the number of beats with reset in the TZ predicts accessory pathway (AP) location in ORT., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 57 patients with ORT (21 left-sided AP, 20 septal AP, and 16 right-sided AP) and 20 patients with AVNRT (19 typical AVNRT and one atypical AVNRT) who underwent VOP from the right ventricular apex. We analyzed the number of beats with reset during or after the TZ, demonstrated by fixed ventricular stimulus-atrial (SA) interval during VOP., Results: The overall mean tachycardia cycle length [CL] minus VOP CL was 22.6 ± 7.5 ms with no statistical difference between the groups (P = 0.480). The mean number of beats in the TZ with fixed SA interval was 2.5 ± 1.4 for the whole ORT group, 1.1 ± 0.4 for left-sided AP (range 1-2), 2.8  ±  0.9 for septal AP (range 1-5), and 4.0 ± 0.9 for right-sided AP (range 3-6) (P < 0.001). Using a cutoff >2 beats distinguished right- versus left-sided AP in all cases., Conclusion: Assessing the number of beats in the TZ with fixed SA interval during VOP helps to determine AP location in ORT and adds valuable information to an established simple diagnostic pacing maneuver, especially when a two-catheter simplified approach is employed., (©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Differential diagnosis between tachycardia mediated by septal accessory pathways (AP) and atypical atrioventricular nodal reentry can be challenging. We hypothesized that an immediate versus delayed pace-related advancement of the atrial electrogram, once the local septal parahisian ventricular electrogram (SVE) has been advanced, may help in this diagnosis., Methods and Results: We focused on differential timing between SVE and atrial signals at the initiation of continuous right ventricular apical pacing during tachycardia. SVE advancement preceding atrial reset was defined as SVE advanced by the paced wave fronts while atrial signal continued at the tachycardia cycle. We analyzed 51 atypical atrioventricular nodal reentry (45% posterior type) and 80 AP tachycardias (anteroseptal [10], parahisian [18], midseptal [12], and posteroseptal [40]). SVE advancement preceding atrial reset was observed in 98% of atrioventricular nodal reentries during 4±1.1 cycles; this phenomena was observed in 6 (8%) of the atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia mediated by septal AP (P<0.001; sensitivity 98%; specificity 93%; positive predictive value 90%; negative predictive value 99%) and lasted 1 single cycle (P<0.001). Right posteroseptal AP tachycardias were distinctly characterized by atrial reset preceding SVE advancement (with ventricular fusion; specificity 100%; positive predictive value 100%). In 11 cases, it was impossible to achieve sustain entrainment. In all of them, the differential responses at the entrainment attempt allowed for appropriate diagnosis., Conclusions: The differential response of the SVE and the atrial electrogram at the initiation of continuous right ventricular apical pacing during tachycardia effectively distinguishes between atypical atrioventricular nodal reentry and atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia mediated by septal APs., (© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: The stimulus-atrial (SA) interval minus ventriculoatrial (VA) interval (SA-VA) difference represents a simple diagnostic maneuver to distinguish between atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) and orthodromic reentrant tachycardia (ORT) during electrophysiology study. However, its usefulness has largely been studied in selected patient subgroups. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the SA-VA difference against commonly used diagnostic maneuvers in a large cohort of consecutive patients., Methods: Consecutive patients with inducible supraventricular tachycardia and successful entrainment through pacing trains from right ventricular apex during an electrophysiological study were included. Atrial tachycardias were excluded. The following intervals were calculated for each patient: SA-VA difference, His potential, and atrial electrogram during entrainment minus His potential and atrial electrogram during tachycardia, and the corrected return cycle., Results: A total of 456 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which electrophysiological study revealed 265 typical AVNRT, 38 atypical AVNRT, and 54 and 108 ORT through a septal and free-wall accessory pathway, respectively. An SA-VA difference >99 ms identified AVNRT in all patients with sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of 97.7%, 96.9%, 98.3%, and 95.7%, respectively., Conclusions: This study confirms the high ability to distinguish AVNRT from ORT using the SA-VA difference, not only in selected patient subgroups, but as whole when a cut-off of >99 ms is used., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)