The dual AV nodal pathways: are they dual and where are they?

Effects of a blocked atrial beat on the atrioventricular nodal recovery property in patients with dual nodal pathways

Dual AVN physiology can be demonstrated by a variety of maneuvers. To determine whether AVN recovery times following a blocked extrastimulus facilitate or obscure detection of dual AVN physiology, 11 patients (9-17 years) were studied with dual AVN pathways by using single and double atrial extrastimuli. With a single atrial extrastimuli, the premature atrial stimulus (A2) was coupled to basic atrial beats (A1). The fast and slow AVN recovery curves were constructed with plots of the nodal conduction time against the recovery time (A1A2,A2H2). With double atrial extrastimuli, a fixed blocked A2 beat (A2B) was followed by a scanning atrial beat (A3). The nodal recovery property post-A2B was studied by plots of A2BA3,A3H3. In all patients the recovery curve of the fast pathway post-A2B had a leftward shift when compared to that of the pre-A2B curve (i.e., the AH was shortened at the same recovery time). The window of slow pathway conduction post-A2B disappeared totally in five patients and decreased significantly in six patients (post-A2B: 26 +/- 42 ms; pre-A2B: 80 +/- 65 ms, P < 0.05). In the six patients that still had slow pathway conduction post-A2B, the slow pathway effective refractory period post-A2B was significantly less than that of pre-A2B (215 +/- 38 vs 268 +/- 16 ms, P < 0.05). The fast pathway effective refractory period post-A2B was also diminished significantly (235 +/- 62 vs 357 +/- 76 ms, P < 0.0001). The authors conclude that blocked atrial beats decrease the visibility of the slow pathway conduction.

The architecture of the sinus node, the atrioventricular conduction axis, and the internodal atrial myocardium

Concomitant with the development of catheter ablation techniques for the treatment of atrial arrhythmias, there is renewed interest in the morphologic arrangement of the cardiac conduction system. In this article, we revisit the anatomy of the specialized tissues, making special reference to the descriptions given at the time of their discovery. According to criteria for histologic distinction of morphologically specialized tracts set nearly 100 years ago, the penetrating bundle (of His) and the ventricular bundle branches are tracts of specialized cells encased by insulating sheaths of fibrous tissue. In contrast, the sinus and AV nodes are recognized histologically but are not insulated from the working atrial myocardium. At its distal extent, the AV node is distinguished from the penetrating bundle not so much by cellular characteristics, but by the presence of a fibrous collar that surrounds the specialized cells. At the atrial part, a zone of histologically transitional cells interposes between the compact node and the working atrial myocardium. Transitional cells enter the triangle of Koch to join the compact node from superiorly, inferiorly, posteriorly, and from the left. Transitional cells of the sinus node, in contrast, are limited to short tongues that interdigitate with musculature of the terminal crest. Apart from a variable extension of its tail, there are no prominent histologically discrete extensions from the sinus node into the working atrial musculature. The internodal myocardium does not contain discrete conducting tracts comparable with the ventricular bundle branches. Preferential conduction more likely reflects the arrangement of the working internodal cells and their related cellular properties.

Atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia in patients with sinus node dysfunction: electrophysiologic characteristics, clinical presentation, and results of slow pathway ablation

INTRODUCTION

Sinus node dysfunction (SND) is frequently associated with impaired AV conduction. This study investigated the electrophysiologic properties of dual AV nodal pathways in patients suffering from both SND and AV nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two groups of patients with slow-fast AVNRT underwent invasive electrophysiologic testing and catheter ablation of the slow pathway. Group A comprised 10 patients with SND (age 70 +/- 8 years). Group B included 10 age-matched patients without SND (age 69 +/- 7 years; P = NS) who served as controls. Patients of group A exhibited prolongation of the anterograde Wenckebach cycle lengths (WBCLs) of both the fast pathway (559 +/- 96 vs 361 +/- 38 msec; P < 0.01) and the slow pathway (409 +/- 57 vs 339 +/- 32 ms; P < 0.01). However, the delta between the WBCLs of the fast and the slow pathways was larger in patients of group A (150 +/- 80 vs 22 +/- 20 msec; P < 0.01). Retrograde fast pathway conduction was well preserved with no difference in WBCLs (356 +/- 42 vs 330 +/- 47 msec; P = NS). Cycle lengths of AVNRT were longer in group A (468 +/- 46 vs 363 +/- 37 msec; P < 0.01). Clinically, all patients of group A suffered from multiple episodes of AVNRT per week, which was not the case in any patient of group B (P < 0.01). Catheter ablation of the slow pathway eliminated AVNRT in all patients without complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with AVNRT and SND exhibit characteristic electrophysiologic alterations of both AV nodal pathways. Clinically, this results in significantly more frequent episodes of tachycardia. Slow pathway ablation appears to be safe and effective in these patients.