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

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.

Importance of the Activation Sequence of the His or Right Bundle for Diagnosis of Complex Tachycardia Circuits

In this review, we emphasize the unique value of recording the activation sequence of the His bundle or right bundle branch (RB) for diagnoses of various supraventricular and fascicular tachycardias. A close analysis of the His to RB (H-RB) activation sequence can help differentiate various forms of supraventricular tachycardias, namely atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia from concealed nodofascicular tachycardia, a common clinical dilemma. Furthermore, bundle branch reentry tachycardia and fascicular tachycardias often are included in the differential diagnosis of supraventricular tachycardia with aberrancy, and the use of this technique can help the operator make the distinction between supraventricular tachycardias and these other forms of ventricular tachycardias using the His-Purkinje system. We show that this technique is enhanced by the use of multipolar catheters placed to span the proximal His to RB position to record the activation sequence between proximal His potential to the distal RB potential. This allows the operator to fully analyze the activation sequence in sinus rhythm as compared to that during tachycardia and may help target ablation of these arrhythmias. We argue that 3 patterns of H-RB activation are commonly identified-the anterograde H-RB pattern, the retrograde H-RB (right bundle to His bundle) pattern, and the chevron H-RB pattern (simultaneous proximal His and proximal RB activation)-and specific arrhythmias tend to be associated with specific H-RB activation sequences. We show that being able to record and categorize this H-RB relationship can be instrumental to the operator, along with standard pacing maneuvers, to make an arrhythmia diagnosis in complex tachycardia circuits. We highlight the importance of H-RB activation patterns in these complex tachycardias by means of case illustrations from our groups as well as from prior reports.

Limitations of ventricular pacing maneuvers to differentiate orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia from atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia

PURPOSE

Various ventricular pacing maneuvers have been developed to differentiate orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia (ORT) from atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT). We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of ventricular pacing maneuvers in patients undergoing catheter ablation for AVNRT/ORT.

METHODS

Sixty patients with supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) undergoing invasive EP study were included (ORT: 31, typical AVNRT: 18, atypical AVNRT: 11). Ventricular overdrive pacing (VOP) and resetting by premature ventricular stimulation (PVS) during SVT were analyzed by 3 independent observers blinded to the ultimate diagnosis. We determined intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for interobserver agreement and the diagnostic accuracy of consensual results.

RESULTS

Although specificity of all parameters was high (96-100%) for ORT, semi-quantitative parameters of VOP (requiring the recognition of specific ECG patterns) had lower interobserver reliability (ICC: 0.32-0.66) and sensitivity (16.1-77.4%). In contrast, most quantitative measurements of VOP and PVS showed good reproducibility (ICC: 0.93-0.95) and sensitivity (74.2-89.3%), but post-pacing interval after VOP needed correction with AV nodal conduction slowing. False negative results for diagnosing ORT were more common with left free wall vs. right free wall or septal, and slowly vs. fast-conducting septal APs. False positivity was only seen with a bystander, concealed nodo-fascicular/nodo-ventricular (NF/NV) AP in a case of AVNRT.

CONCLUSIONS

No single maneuver is 100% sensitive for ORT. Semi-quantitative features have limited reproducibility and all parameters can be misleading in the case of rate-dependent delay during VOP/PVS, ORT circuits remote from the pacing site, or a bystander, concealed NF/NV AP.

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.

Differential Responses of the Septal Ventricle and the Atrial Signals During Ongoing Entrainment: A Method to Differentiate Orthodromic Reciprocating Tachycardia Using Septal Accessory Pathways From Atypical Atrioventricular Nodal Reentry

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.

Update on arrhythmias and cardiac pacing 2013

This report discusses a selection of the most relevant articles on cardiac arrhythmias and pacing published in 2013. The first section discusses arrhythmias, classified as regular paroxysmal supraventricular tachyarrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, and ventricular arrhythmias, together with their treatment by means of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. The next section reviews cardiac pacing, subdivided into resynchronization therapy, remote monitoring of implantable devices, and pacemakers. The final section discusses syncope.