Would a complete electrophysiological study allow us to make a correct diagnosis? Case report.

BACKGROUND: Oblique course of some left accessory pathways is rare An incomplete electrophysiological study may confuse us between an oblique accessory pathway or the presence of two accessory pathways. The proximity of all atrial and ventricular electrograms, at each pole of the catheter, within the coronary sinus may be a novel finding. CASE PRESENTATION: A 68-year-old woman patient presented arrhythmias with hypotension requiring electrical cardioversion. Her electrocardiogram (ECG) was interpreted as atrial fibrillation by accessory pathway. We performed with the protocol of ablation stablished in our laboratory: two punctures on the right femoral vein with placement of introducers (8F and 7F) by Seldigner technique and one puncture on the left femoral vein (7F). The study was performed with BIOTRONIK technology (Multicath study catheter), a non-deflectable 7F quadripolar catheter with 2 mm tip electrode to record the His electrogram, a non-deflectable decapolar catheter with 5 pairs of coronary sinus (CS) electrodes. Accessory pathway mapping was performed in right and left cavities and within the CS. All electrograms into CS showed short AV from proximal to distal CS. Finally, ablation of two accessory pathway recordings was achieved at two distant epicardial points within the CS. CONCLUSIONS: Ablation at two distant sites, one on the ventricular side and the other on the mitral annulus, suggests the presence of an oblique accessory pathway and at the same time the differential diagnosis of the presence of two accessory pathways. In our point of view according the above, we consider this is a very rare case of oblique AP with epicardial trajectory. The sequence of electrograms (in this case) along the CS has not been seen before in the literature reviewed. It is important, regardless of the urgency, to follow diagnostic and therapeutic protocols in invasive electrophysiology.

Uneven vectorial projection is the best explanation for QRS dispersion, not the asynchronic ventricular activation.

BACKGROUND: It is believed that QRS dispersion (QRSd) is caused by asynchrony of ventricular activation, but there are no studies that prove it. OBJECTIVES: To determine the mechanism that best explains QRSd in surface electrocardiogram (ECG). METHODS: Cross-sectional study in 95 consecutive patients (median age: 31.0 years [25-52], female sex: 66.3%) with atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia. All 12 ECG leads were recorded at once, simultaneously with the intracardiac recordings. QRSd was quantified as the difference between maximum (QRSmax) and minimum QRS duration (QRSmin). QRS was measured firstly at a calibration of 20 mm/mV and a sweep speed of 50 mm/s, enhancement 10× (basic measurement [BM]), and after at sweep speed of 150 mm/s, enhancement 80 - 160×. The interventricular dyssynchrony (IVD) was also quantified. RESULTS: QRSmax increased from BM (98 ms [91-103]) to 80× (102 ms [99-108]; p = 0.029) and 160× (104 ms [101.5-110]; p = 0.027). QRSmin, almost equaled the duration of QRSmax at 160× (103 ms [100-108]). With BM, QRSd was 26 ms [22-35] and was reduced 26-fold (p < 0.001) by magnifying the QRS at 160× (1 ms [0-3]). IVD was weakly correlated with QRSd (r = 0.234, p = 0.023), but strongly with the total QRS at 160× (r = 0.676, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: When QRS complex is narrow, the best explanation for the origin of QRSd on the surface ECG is the unequal projection of the ventricular depolarization vector in the different axis of the leads.

New Parameter of the Second Half of the P-Wave, P-Wave Duration, and Atrial Conduction Times Predict Atrial Fibrillation during Electrophysiological Studies.

OBJECTIVE: Several P-wave parameters reflect atrial conduction characteristics and have been used to predict atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between maximum P-wave duration (PMax) and new P-wave parameters, with atrial conduction times (CT), and to assess their predictive value of AF during electrophysiological studies (AF-EPS). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study in 153 randomly selected patients aged 18-70 years, undergoing EPS. The patients were divided into 2 groups designated as no AF-EPS and AF-EPS, depending on whether AF occurred during EPS or not. Different P-wave parameters and atrial CT were compared for both study groups. Subsequently, the predictive value of the P-wave parameters and the atrial CT for AF-EPS was evaluated. RESULTS: The values of CT, PMax, and maximum Ppeak-Pend interval (Pp-eMax) were significantly higher in patients with AF-EPS. Almost all P-wave parameters were correlated with the left CT. PMax, Pp-eMax, and CT were univariate and multivariate predictors of AF-EPS. The largest ROC area was presented by interatrial CT (0.852; p < 0.001; cutoff value: ≥82.5 ms; sensitivity: 91.1%; specificity: 81.1%). Pp-eMax showed greater sensitivity (79.5%) to discriminate AF-EPS than PMax (72.7%), but the latter had better specificity (60.4% vs. 41.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Left atrial CT were directly and significantly correlated with PMax and almost all the parameters of the second half of the P-wave. CT, PMax, and Pp-eMax (new parameter) were good predictors of AF-EPS, although CT did more robustly.

Vectorial theory surpasses the local theory in explaining the origin of P-wave dispersion.

BACKGROUND: Local theory and the vectorial theory are used to explain the origin of P-wave dispersion (PWD). There are no previous studies that analyze both at the same time. OBJECTIVES: We set out to determine the implication of local and vectorial theories in the origin of PWD. METHODS: Cross-sectional study in 153 randomly selected patients aged 18-70 years, undergoing electrophysiological study. Inhomogeneous atrial conduction was evaluated by atrial electrogram dispersion in terms of duration (EGMdurdis) and morphology (EGMmorph dis). P-distal coronary sinus interval (P-DCS) was also measured. P-wave was measured twice, firstly at a calibration of 20 mm/mV and a sweep speed of 50 mm/s, enhancement 10× (basic measurement [BM]), and second time at sweep speed of 150 mm/s, enhancement 80-160× (high precision measurement [HPM]). RESULTS: PWD with BM was 48 ms [36-54 ms] while with HPM it was 4 ms [0-10 ms], p < 0.001. With BM, maximum and minimum P- wave duration presented a moderate correlation (r = 0.342; p < 0.001), using HPM it becomes strong (r = 0.750; p < 0.001). In cases with P-DCS < 80 ms (r = 0.965; p < 0.001), but not with P-DCS ≥ 80 ms (r = 0.649; p < 0.001), the previous correlation became almost perfect with HPM. EGMdurdis and EGMmorphdis were weak but significantly correlated with PWD. This correlation became moderate in patients with P-DCS ≥ 80 ms and disappeared in those with P-DCS, using BM and HPM. CONCLUSION: Vectorial theory explains almost entirely the PWD phenomenon. Inhomogeneous conduction could be an additional mechanism to explain PWD, but its contribution is small.

Atrial conduction explains the occurrence of the P-wave dispersion phenomenon, but weakly.

BACKGROUND: P-wave dispersion (PWD) is believed to be caused by inhomogeneous atrial conduction. This statement, however, is based on limited little solid evidence. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between atrial conduction and PWD by means of invasive electrophysiological studies. METHODS: Cross-sectional study in 153 patients with accessory pathways and atrioventricular node reentry tachycardia (AVNRT) undergoing an electrophysiological study. Different atrial conduction times were measured and correlated with PWD. RESULTS: Only the interatrial (P-DCS) and left intra-atrial conduction times (ΔDCS-PCS) showed a significant correlation with PWD, but this correlation was weak. Multivariate linear regression analysis determined that both P-DCS (ß = 0.242; P = .008) and ΔDCS-PCS (ß = 0.295; P < .001) are independent predictors of PWD. Performing the multivariate analysis for arrhythmic substrates, it is observed that only ΔDCS-PCS continued to be an independent predictor of PWD. Analysis of the receiver operating characteristic curves showed that regardless of the types of arrhythmic substrates, PWD discriminates significantly, but moderately, to patients with P-DCS and ΔDCS-PCS ≥75 percentile. CONCLUSIONS: Interatrial and intraleft atrial conduction times were directly and significantly correlated with PWD, but only weakly, and were independent predictors of PWD. In general, PWD correctly discriminates patients with high values in interatrial and intraleft atrial conduction times, but moderately. This is maintained in cases with accessory pathways; however, in patients with AVNRT it only does so for intraleft atrial conduction times. Interatrial and intraleft atrial conduction times weakly explains PWD.