Search

OBJECTIVE: To examine the hypothesis that the anatomic equivalents of the fast and slow pathways identified in patients with atrioventricular (AV) nodal tachycardia may be universal and represent the principal sites of atrial input into the normal compact AV node. METHODS: 15 patients undergoing complete AV junction ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were studied. Radiofrequency energy was delivered first in the anterior "fast pathway" position so as to prolong the atrium to bundle of His (AH) interval by over 50% of baseline (protocol 1) and then to the "slow pathway" position using the anatomical technique (protocol 2). RESULTS: Ablation protocol 1 resulted in prolongation of AH interval in all patients. Subsequent lesions at the level of the coronary sinus produced complete heart block in four patients, and in five caused a further increase in AH interval above that produced by protocol 1. Four of these latter patients developed complete block after delivery of RF energy slightly anterior to the level of the coronary sinus os, as did three further patients in whom ablation at the level of the coronary sinus had no effect. In four patients complete heart block could not be achieved by protocol 2. CONCLUSIONS: A discrete anterior "fast" pathway and a posterior "slow" pathway or network of posterior pathways form the principal inputs to the compact AV node in most patients with atrial fibrillation. The absence of dual AV nodal physiology in the majority of these patients may be related to the functional properties of the individual components of this posterior network.

OBJECTIVE--To determine whether lead adjustment formulas for correcting QT dispersion measurements are appropriate in patients after myocardial infarction. DESIGN--Retrospective analysis of QTc dispersion measurements in 461 electrocardiograms (ECGs). Data are presented as uncorrected QTc dispersion "adjusted" for a number of measurable leads and coefficient of variation of QTc intervals for ECGs in which between six and 12 leads had a QT interval that could be measured accurately. PATIENTS--Patients were drawn from the placebo arm of the second Leicester Intravenous Magnesium Intervention Trial. Some 163 patients who subsequently died and an equal number of known survivors had ECGs recorded on day 2 or 3 of acute myocardial infarction. ECGs were also available in 135 of these patients from at least 1 month postinfarct. RESULTS--The most common lead in which a QT interval measurement was omitted was aVR (n = 176), the least common lead was V3 (n = 13). The longest QTc interval measured was most usually in lead V4 (n = 72) and the shortest in lead V1 (n = 67). As the number of measurable leads decreased there was a small, nonsignificant increase in QTc dispersion from 12 lead to eight lead ECGs (mean (SD) 100 (35.5) v 109.5 (47.9) ms). Lead adjusted QTc dispersion (QTc dispersion/square root of the number of measurable leads) showed a large, significant increase when the number of measurable leads decreased from 12 to eight (28.9 (10.3) v 38.7 (16.1) ms, P < 0.001). A similar trend was seen for coefficient of variation of QTc intervals (standard deviation of QTc intervals/mean QTc interval 64.3 (2.19) v 8.45 (3.94)%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS--Lead adjustment formulas for QT dispersion are not appropriate in patients with myocardial infarction. Large differences in lead adjusted QTc dispersion are produced, dependent on the number of measurable leads, for very small differences in QTc dispersion. It is recommended that QT dispersion is presented as unadjusted QT and QTc dispersion, stating the mean (SD) of the number of leads in which a QT interval was measured.

Background—Survival was prolonged in selected patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias who received implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in the antiarrhythmics versus implantable defibrillators (AVID) study. The Midlands trial of empirical amiodarone versus electrophysiologically guided intervention and cardioverter implant in ventricular arrhythmias (MAVERIC) registry is a population based trial. Objective—To determine the number of patients who satisfy the AVID criteria because of the high cost of ICDs. Design—Observational study, based on a continuing trial. Setting—All coronary care units in the Midlands region in the United Kingdom (population 9.1 million). Patients—Patients presenting to a coronary care unit with sustained ventricular arrhythmias not related to an acute myocardial infarction are entered onto the registry. Those who consent to the MAVERIC study are randomised to receive either empirical amiodarone or electrophysiologically guided treatment. Demographic data, details of clinical presentation, and echocardiographic findings are collected. These data have been used to calculate the number of patients who satisfy the AVID criteria and would benefit from ICD implantation. The financial implications have been calculated for the region and nationally. Results—132 patients were entered onto the registry during the first five months of the MAVERIC study; 69 patients fulfilled the AVID criteria. Extrapolation of these data over a 12 month period suggests implantation of at least 166 new ICDs (compared with 23 implants in 1996). This would increase the UK ICD implant rate from five to at least 18 per million of the population, costing the National Health Service £24.1 million per annum. Conclusion—Application of the AVID criteria in the UK will cause a great increase in the ICD implant rate, with serious financial implications. Keywords: AVID study; MAVERIC trial; implantable cardioverter defibrillator; economics; arrhythmias