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.

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.