In:
Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), Vol. 4, No. 4 ( 2011-08), p. 506-509
Abstract:
The response to right ventricular (RV) entrainment is useful to distinguish atypical AV node reentrant tachycardia from AV reentrant tachycardia using a septal accessory pathway. Whether entrainment can differentiate between AV node reentrant tachycardia and AV reentrant tachycardia in patients with long-RP tachycardia has not been systematically validated. Methods and Results— Twenty-four patients with concealed septal accessory pathways who had an electrophysiology study between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2010, were included (age, 38±17 years; men, 17). Entrainment was performed from the RV apex pacing at cycle length 20 to 40 ms shorter than tachycardia cycle length (TCL). The mean TCL was 390±80 ms, the mean AH interval during tachycardia was 151±57 ms, and the mean ventriculoatrial (VA) time was 182±103 ms. Twelve patients had typical accessory pathways (VA/TCL 〈 40%), and 12 had slowly conducting accessory pathways (VA/TCL ≥40%). In all patients with typical accessory pathways, the postpacing interval minus the TCL (PPI−TCL) was 〈 115 ms and the difference in the VA interval during pacing and tachycardia (StimA−VA) was 〈 85 ms. On the other hand, in 6 of the 12 patients in the slowly conducting group, the PPI−TCL was 〉 115 ms, and the StimA−VA was 〉 85 ms. Conclusions— Slowly conducting accessory pathways frequently yield RV entrainment criteria traditionally attributable to AV node reentry. Distinguishing AV node reentry from AV reentry in patients with long-RP tachycardia requires other criteria.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
1941-3149
,
1941-3084
DOI:
10.1161/CIRCEP.111.961987
Language:
English
Publisher:
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Publication Date:
2011
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2425487-3
