His overdrive pacing during supraventricular tachycardia: a novel maneuver for distinguishing atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia from atrioventricular reciprocating tachycardia.

BACKGROUND: Because the His bundle is intrinsic to the circuit in orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia and remote from that of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT), pacing the His bundle during supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) may be useful to distinguish these arrhythmias. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that His overdrive pacing (HOP) would affect SVT immediately for orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia and in a delayed manner for AVNRT. METHODS: Once SVT was induced, HOP was performed by pacing the His bundle 10-30 ms faster than the SVT cycle length. The maneuver was determined to have entered the tachycardia circuit when a nonfused His-capture beat advanced or delayed the subsequent atrial electrogram by ≥10 ms or when the tachycardia was terminated. The number of beats required to enter each tachycardia with HOP was recorded. RESULTS: HOP was performed during 66 SVTs (26 atrioventricular reciprocating tachycardia [AVRT] and 40 AVNRT). Entry into the tachycardia within 1 beat had sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 92%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 95% to confirm the diagnosis of AVRT. A cutoff ≥3 beats to enter the circuit had sensitivity of 90%, specificity of 92%, PPV of 95% and NPV of 86% to confirm the diagnosis of AVNRT. HOP had sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 100% for distinguishing septal AVRT from atypical AVNRT. CONCLUSION: HOP during SVT is a novel technique for distinguishing orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia from AVNRT. It can reliably distinguish between these arrhythmias with high sensitivity and specificity.

Fusion during entrainment of orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia is enhanced for basal pacing sites but diminished when pacing near Purkinje system end points.

BACKGROUND: In the electrophysiological laboratory, orthodromic atrioventricular reciprocating tachycardia (ORT) can be distinguished from atrial tachycardia and atrioventricular node reentry tachycardia by identifying orthodromic and antidromic wavefront fusion during ventricular overdrive pacing (VOP). Previous work has shown that basal VOP near the accessory pathway (AP) increases the likelihood of observing fusion; however, in a third of cases, fusion is not appreciable regardless of VOP location. OBJECTIVE: To explore the hypothesis that pacing near His-Purkinje system (PS) end points reduces fusion quality, which may explain patients with nonresponsive ORT. METHODS: In a novel computer model of ORT, simulations were performed with a variety of AP locations and pacing sites; results were analyzed to assess factors influencing fusion quality in pseudo-electrocardiogram signals. RESULTS: Entrainment by basal VOP near the AP was more likely to produce fusion visible on simulated electrocardiograms compared to entrainment by apical VOP, but this advantage was dramatically diminished when the pacing site was also near PS end points. Prediction of fusion quality based on AP proximity alone was dramatically improved when corrected to penalize for PS proximity. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that basal VOP near the AP and far from the PS is optimal; this could be tested in patients. A denser basal ramification of PS fibers is known to exist in a minority of human hearts; our findings indicate that this unusual PS configuration is a plausible explanation for ORT cases where fusion is never observed in spite of entrainment by basal VOP near the AP.

A novel approach to differentiating orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia from atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia.

BACKGROUND: Various diagnostic maneuvers have been proposed to help differentiate orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia (ORT) from atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) prior to ablation. However, not all criteria are applicable in every situation as each has limitations. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the behavior of tachycardia during onset of right ventricular (RV) pacing would help differentiate ORT from AVNRT. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 72 cases (42 typical AVNRT, 7 atypical AVNRT, 15 left free-wall pathways, 6 septal pathways, 2 right free-wall pathways). We assessed the number of beats required to accelerate the tachycardia cycle length (TCL) to the paced cycle length (PCL) once a fully RV paced complex was achieved during supraventricular tachycardia. RESULTS: In the AVNRT group, delta cycle length (DCL = PCL-TCL) was 29 +/- 16 ms compared to 29 +/- 10 ms in ORT group (P = NS). In the AVNRT group, the average number of fully RV paced beats required to reset the tachycardia was 3.7 +/- 1.1 compared to 1 +/- 0 in the ORT group (P <.0001). Using a cutoff >1 beat yielded both positive and negative predictive values of 100% for diagnosing AVNRT versus ORT. During entrainment attempts, AVNRT terminated 51% of the time and ORT terminated 65% of the time but still allowed application of the new criterion. CONCLUSION: Assessing timing and type of response of supraventricular tachycardia to RV pacing can help differentiate ORT from AVNRT with high certainty and prevent the need for other pacing maneuvers and measurements.

Clinical validation and comparison of alternative methods for evaluation of entrainment mapping.

INTRODUCTION: Measuring the postpacing interval (PPI) and correcting for the tachycardia cycle length (TCL) is an important entrainment response (ER). However, it may be impossible to measure PPI due to electrical noise on the mapping catheter. To overcome this problem, 2 alternative methods for the assessment of ER have been proposed: N+1 difference (N+1 DIFF) and PPIR method. PPI-TCL difference (PPI-TCL) correlates very well with ER assessed by new methods, but the agreement with PPI-TCL was established only in relation to PPIR method. Moreover, it is not known which of these methods is superior in the assessment of ER. METHODS: We analyzed 155 episodes of ER in 21 patients with heterogeneous reentrant arrhythmias. ER was estimated by PPI-TCL and by both alternative methods. Agreement between methods was assessed by means of the Bland-Altman test, kappa coefficient (kappa), and correlation coefficient (r). Finally, a mathematical comparison of the alternative methods was performed. RESULTS: The agreement between PPI-TCL and alternative methods was very good. For N+1 DIFF the mean difference was -1.86 +/- 7.31 ms; kappa = 0.9; r = 0.98; for PPIR method the mean difference was -1.46 +/- 7.65 ms; kappa = 0.92; r = 0.99. Agreement between both alternative methods was also very high: the mean difference of 0.5 +/- 6.6 ms; kappa = 0.89; r = 0.99. The analysis of the equations used for calculation of ER by these methods revealed that essentially they were mathematically equivalent. CONCLUSION: Each of the alternative methods may be used for evaluation of ER when PPI-TCL cannot be assessed directly. Results obtained by both alternative methods are comparable.