Unusual ventricular entrainment response: What is the mechanism?

Entrainment is an important tool for the diagnosis and location of reentry. The usefulness of this maneuver requires that, prior to cessation of ventricular pacing, the atrial rate accelerates to the ventricular pacing rate. Moreover, it is important to verify the continuation of the tachycardia following cessation of entrainment. The recognizing the last entrained atrial beat is utmost important to avoid erroneous A-A-V labeling.

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.