Search

Aims: Tachycardia mediated by septal accessory pathways (AP) and atypical atrioventricular nodal re-entry (AVNRT) require careful electrophysiologic evaluation for differential diagnosis. We aim to describe the differential behaviour of local ventriculo-atrial (VA) intervals which predicts the tachycardia mechanism.Methods and results: The local VA intervals at the para-Hisian septum were measured under three different situations: (i) tachycardia; (ii) sustained entrainment from the right ventricular apex (RVA); and (iii) continuous pacing from the RVA during sinus rhythm. Differences were computed as follows: Δ-VAentr = VA during entrainment - VA during tachycardia; and Δ-VApac = VA while pacing during sinus rhythm - VA during tachycardia. In contrast to AVNRT, we hypothesized that an invariable retrograde conduction through the septal AP will keep the result of the subtractions close to 0 ms in cases of ortodromic atrioventricular re-entrant tachycardia (AVRT). We analysed 55 atypical AVNRT (45% posterior type) and 82 AVRT (10 anteroseptal, 18 para-Hisian, 12 mid-septal, and 42 posteroseptal). Δ-VAentr was longer for AVNRT (98.5 ± 40.3 ms) compared with septal AP (-5.7 ± 19.3 ms; P < 0.001). A value of 50 ms showed 98.7% sensitivity and 92% specificity (AUC 0.99; 95% CI 0.98-1). According to physiological criteria, a negative Δ-VAentr remains unobserved in the case of AVNRT (positive predictive value 100% for septal AP). Δ-VApac was also longer for AVNRT (66.5 ± 14.6 ms) compared with septal AP (-9.7 ± 3.3 ms; P < 0.001). A value of 50 ms showed 100% sensitivity and 74% specificity (AUC 0.86; 95% CI 0.76-0.93).Conclusions: Delta of the local VA intervals enables distinction between atypical AVNRT and AVRT mediated by septal AP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resetting Response to Differentiate SVT Background The usefulness of ventricular entrainment to differentiate AV nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) from orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia (ORT) by substracting the corrected postpacing interval (cPPI) from the tachycardia cycle length (TCL) or the ventriculoatrial interval during stimulation (SA) from that during tachycardia (VA) have been widely validated. However, some tachycardias are interrupted by pacing trains but may not be so by ventricular extrastimuli resulting in resetting. Objectives To validate prospectively the diagnostic yield of cPPI-TCL and SA-VA measurements after resetting and to determine the proportion of AVNRT and ORT that can be entrained and/or reset from the right ventricular apex (RVA). Methods 223 consecutive patients with inducible AVNRT or ORT underwent pacing trains and single extrastimulus (also double extrastimuli if singles did not reset tachycardia) at the RVA. We calculated cPPI-TCL and SA-VA during entrainment and resetting. Results Entrainment could not be achieved in 15.2% of tachycardias because of consistent tachycardia interruption by pacing; resetting was observed in 99.5%. Values of cPPI-TCL and SA-VA > 110 milliseconds after resetting identified AVNRT as accurately as after entrainment. Values for cPPI-TCL/ SA-VA were: sensitivity: 98/100%; specificity: 96/98%; positive predictive value: 98/99%; negative predictive value: 98/100%. Conclusions Determinations of cPPI-TCL and SA-VA after resetting with single or double RVA extrastimuli are useful maneuvers to differentiate AVNRT from ORT and can be used for nearly every inducible AVNRT or ORT, even if they are interrupted by ventricular trains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]