Differences in Ventriculoatrial Intervals During Entrainment and Tachycardia: A Simpler Method for Distinguishing Paroxysmal Supraventricular Tachycardia with Long Ventriculoatrial Intervals

The Value of Programmed Ventricular Extrastimuli From the Right Ventricular Basal Septum During Supraventricular Tachycardia

BACKGROUND

The difference between the right ventricular (RV) apical stimulus-atrial electrogram (SA) interval during resetting of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) versus the ventriculoatrial (VA) interval during SVT (ΔSA-VA_apex) is an established technique for discerning SVT mechanisms but is limited by a significant diagnostic overlap.

OBJECTIVES

This study hypothesized that the difference between the RV SA interval during resetting of SVTs versus the VA interval during SVTs (ΔSA-VA) would yield a more robust differentiation of atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia (AVNRT) from atrioventricular reciprocating tachycardia (AVRT) when using the RV basal septal stimulation (ΔSA-VA_base) as compared to the RV apical stimulation (ΔSA-VA_apex). Moreover, it was predicted that the ΔSA-VA_base might distinguish septal from free wall accessory pathways (APs) effectively.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 105 patients with AVNRTs (age 48 ± 20 years, 44% male) and 130 with AVRTs (age 26 ± 18 years, 54% male) underwent programmed ventricular extrastimuli delivered from both the RV basal septum and RV apex. The ΔSA-VA values were compared between the 2 sites.

RESULTS

The ΔSA-VA_base was shorter than the ΔSA-VA_apex during AVRT (44 ± 30 ms vs 58 ± 29 ms; P < 0.001), and the opposite occurred during AVNRT (133 ± 31 ms vs 125 ± 25 ms; P = 0.03). A ΔSA-VA_base of ≧85 milliseconds had a sensitivity of 97% and specificity of 96% for identifying AVNRT. Furthermore, a ΔSA-VA_base of 45-85 milliseconds identified AVRT with left free wall APs (sensitivity 86%, specificity 95%), 20-45 milliseconds for posterior septal APs (sensitivity 72%, specificity 96%), and <20 milliseconds for right free wall or anterior/mid septal APs (sensitivity 86%, specificity 98%).

CONCLUSIONS

The ΔSA-VA_base during programmed ventricular extrastimuli produced a robust differentiation between AVNRT and AVRT regardless of the AP location with ≧85 milliseconds as an excellent cutoff point. This straightforward technique further allowed localizing 4 general AP sites.

Spontaneous Variation of Ventriculo-Atrial Interval after Tachycardia Induction: Determinants and Usefulness in the Diagnosis of Supraventricular Tachycardias with Long Ventriculoatrial Interval

Background: Determining the mechanism of supraventricular tachycardias with prolongedP ventriculoatrial (VA) intervals is sometimes a challenge. Our objective is to analyse the determinants, time course and diagnostic accuracy (atypical atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardias [AVNRT] versus orthodromic reentrant tachycardias through an accessory pathway [ORT]) of spontaneous VA intervals variation in patients with narrow QRS tachycardias and prolonged VA. Methods: A total of 156 induced tachycardias were studied (44 with atypical AVNRT and 112 with ORT). Two sets of 10 measurements were performed for each patient—after tachycardia induction and one minute later. VA and VV intervals were determined. Results: The difference between the longest and the shortest VA interval (Dif-VA) correlates significantly with the diagnosis of atypical AVNRT (C coefficient = 0.95 and 0.85 after induction and at one minute, respectively; p < 0.001). A Dif-VA ≥ 15 ms presents a sensitivity and specificity for atypical AVNRT of 50% and 99%, respectively after induction, and of 27% and 100% one minute later. We found a robust and significant correlation between the fluctuations of VV and VA intervals in atypical AVNRTs (Coefficient Rho: 0.56 and 0.76, after induction and at one minute, respectively; p < 0.001 for both) but not in ORTs. Conclusions: The analysis of VA interval variability after induction and one minute later correctly discriminates atypical AVNRT from ORT in almost all cases.

Variability of the VA interval at tachycardia induction: a simple method to differentiate orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia from atypical atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia

BACKGROUND

The differential diagnosis between orthodromic atrioventricular reentry tachycardia (AVRT) and atypical AV nodal reentrant tachycardia (aAVNRT) is sometimes challenging. We hypothesize that aAVNRTs have more variability in the retrograde conduction time at tachycardia onset than AVRTs.

METHODS

We aimed to assess the variability in retrograde conduction time at tachycardia onset in AVRT and aAVNRT and to propose a new diagnostic tool to differentiate these two arrhythmia mechanisms. We measured the VA interval of the first beats after tachycardia induction until it stabilized. The difference between the maximum and minimum VA intervals (∆VA) and the number of beats needed for the VA interval to stabilize was analyzed. Atrial tachycardias were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients with aAVNRT (n = 37) or AVRT (n = 64) were included. Six additional patients with decremental accessory pathway-mediated tachycardia (DAPT) were analyzed separately. All aAVNRTs had VA interval variability. The median ∆VA was 0 (0 - 5) ms in AVRTs vs 40 (21 - 55) ms in aAVNRTs (p < 0.001). The VA interval stabilized significantly earlier in AVRTs (median 1.5 [1 - 3] beats) than in aAVNRTs (5 [4 - 7] beats; p < 0.001). A ∆VA < 10 ms accurately differentiated AVRT from aAVNRT with 100% of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. The stabilization of the VA interval at < 3 beats of the tachycardia onset identified AVRT with sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of 64.1%, 94.6%, 95.3%, and 60.3%, respectively. A ∆VA < 20 ms yielded good diagnostic accuracy for DAPT.

CONCLUSIONS

A ∆VA < 10 ms is a simple and useful criterion that accurately distinguished AVRT from atypical AVNRT. Central panel: Scatter plot showing individual values of ∆VA in atypical AVNRT and AVRT. Left panel: induction of atypical AVNRT. The VA interval stabilizes at the 5th beat and the ∆VA is 62 ms (maximum VA interval: 172 ms - minimum VA interval: 110 ms). Right panel: induction of AVRT. The tachycardia has a fixed VA interval from the first beat. ∆VA is 0 ms.

When and how does a single ventricular premature beat initiate and terminate supraventricular tachycardia?

BACKGROUND

The differential diagnosis of a supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) is accomplished using a number of pacing maneuvers. The incidence and mechanism of a single ventricular premature beat (VPB) on initiation and termination of tachycardia were evaluated during programmed electrical stimulation (PES) of the heart in patients with the two most common regular SVTs: atrioventricular re-entrant tachycardia (AVNRT) and orthodromic atrioventricular tachycardia (AVRT).

METHODS

Three hundred and thirty-seven consecutive patients aged above 18 years with an inducible sustained AVNRT or AVRT were prospectively enrolled. Patients with more than one tachyarrhythmia mechanism were excluded. Two hundred and seventeen patients (64.4%) had typical slow/fast AVNRT and 120 (35.6%) had an orthodromic AVRT using a rapidly conducting accessory pathway for V-A conduction. In this cross-sectional study, we specifically report the analysis of tachycardia induction and termination by a single VPB.

RESULTS

Tachycardia induction with a single VPB during sinus rhythm was seen in 7 of 120 AVRT and in only one of the 217 patients with AVNRT, (5.8% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.05). When a single VPB was delivered during basic ventricular pacing these values were 28% versus 4%, respectively, (p < 0.001). Termination of tachycardia by a single VPB was observed in nine (4.1%) patients with AVNRT and in 57 (47.5%) with AVRT (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Initiation of SVT by a single VPB during sinus rhythm was uncommon and favored AVRT. Termination of SVT by a single VPB was commonly seen in AVRT but rarely in AVNRT. These findings can be of help when interpreting a noninvasive arrhythmia event recording.

Delta of the local ventriculo-atrial intervals at the septal location to differentiate tachycardia using septal accessory pathways from atypical atrioventricular nodal re-entry

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.

Use of Programmed Ventricular Extrastimulus During Supraventricular Tachycardia to Differentiate Atrioventricular Nodal Re-Entrant Tachycardia From Atrioventricular Re-Entrant Tachycardia

OBJECTIVES

This study hypothesized that early coupled ventricular extrastimuli (V₂) stimulation might yield a more robust differentiation between atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia (AVNRT) and atrioventricular re-entrant tachycardia (AVRT).

BACKGROUND

Programmed V₂ during supraventricular tachycardia are useful to differentiate AVNRT from AVRT by subtracting the ventriculoatrial (VA) interval from the stimulus to atrial depolarization (stimulus atrial [SA]) interval, but all such maneuvers have limitations.

METHODS

Patients with either AVNRT or AVRT were investigated. The entire tachycardia cycle length (TCL) was scanned with V₂ delivered from the right ventricular apex. The SA-VA difference was calculated with V₂ clearly resetting the tachycardia. The prematurity of V₂ was calculated by dividing the coupling interval (CI) by the TCL.

RESULTS

A total of 210 patients (102 with AVNRT) were included. The SA-VA difference was >70 ms in all AVNRT patients and was <70 ms in all AVRT patients with right and septal accessory pathways (APs), except for those with decremental APs, in whom there was an overlap between AVNRT and AVRT with left APs. However, a SA-VA difference >110 ms with a CI/TCL of <65% distinguished AVNRT from AVRT using the left AP, with sensitivity and specificity of 87% and 100%, respectively. Ventricular overdrive pacing resulted in tachycardia termination or AV dissociation in 28% of patients compared with 15% of patients using the V₂ technique (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

A SA-VA of >70 ms using the V₂ technique differentiated AVNRT from AVRT using septal and right APs. Use of the V₂ technique with a short CI differentiated AVNRT from AVRT using left APs. The V₂ technique less frequently resulted in tachycardia termination compared with ventricular entrainment.

A Simple Method to Differentiate Atrioventricular Node Reentrant Tachycardia from Orthodromic Reciprocating Tachycardia

Discrimination between atrioventricular node reentry tachycardia (AVNRT) and orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia (ORT) during an electrophysiological study is sometimes challenging. This study aimed to investigate if the difference in the local VA (ventricle-atrium) interval during ventricular entrainment pacing and during tachycardia (DVA, defined as the shortest local VA interval of coronary sinus [CS] during entrainment minus the shortest local VA interval of CS during tachycardia) was different in patients with AVNRT and patients with ORT.Diagnoses of AVNRT or ORT through a concealed accessory pathway (AP) were made according to conventional electrophysiological criteria and ablation results. Entrainment by right ventricular (RV) pacing was performed in each patient before ablation and patients with successful entrainment were included in the study. The DVA was compared between patients with AVNRT and patients with ORT. The DVA in patients with AVNRT was significantly longer than that in patients with ORT (120 ± 20 versus 5.7 ± 9; P < 0.001). In each patient with AVNRT of slow-fast type, fast-slow type, and slow-slow type, the DVA was more than 48 ms. In each patient with ORT using a left free wall accessory pathway (AP), right free wall AP, and septal AP, the DVA was less than 20 ms.DVA was found to be a rapid, useful test in distinguishing patients with AVNRT from those with ORT.

Long RP interval tachycardia. What is the mechanism?

A 41-year-old man with a history of tachycardia refractory to multiple antiarrhythmic drugs was sent to our institution. His 12-lead electrocardiogram demonstrated incessant narrow QRS complex tachycardia with negative P waves in the inferior leads and long RP interval. Occasionally, the tachycardia terminated after a P wave and then was restarted after a sinusal beat. An EP study was performed during tachycardia. Intracardiac electrograms during tachycardia and response to pacing maneuvers are shown. What is the tachycardia mechanism?

Performance of the SA-VA Difference to Differentiate Atrioventricular Nodal Reentrant Tachycardia from Orthodromic Reentrant Tachycardia in a Large Cohort of Consecutive Patients

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.

Differentiation of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia from orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia by the resetting response to ventricular extrastimuli: comparison to response to continuous ventricular pacing

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.