[An intelligent model for classifying supraventricular tachycardia mechanisms based on 12-lead wearable electrocardiogram devices].

OBJECTIVE: To develop an intelligent model for differential diagnosis of atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia (AVNRT) and atrioventricular re-entrant tachycardia (AVRT) using 12-lead wearable electrocardiogram devices. METHODS: A total of 356 samples of 12-lead supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) electrocardiograms recorded by wearable devices were randomly divided into training and validation sets using 5-fold cross validation to establish the intelligent classification model, and 101 patients with the diagnosis of SVT undergoing electrophysiological studies and radiofrequency ablation from October, 2021 to March, 2023 were selected as the testing set. The changes in electrocardiogram parameters before and during induced tachycardia were compared. Based on multiscale deep neural network, an intelligent diagnosis model for classifying SVT mechanisms was constructed and validated. The 3-lead electrocardiogram signals from Ⅱ, Ⅲ, and Ⅴ1 were extracted to build new classification models, whose diagnostic efficacy was compared with that of the 12-lead model. RESULTS: Of the 101 patients with SVT in the testing set, 68 were diagnosed with AVNRT and 33 were diagnosed with AVRT by electrophysiological study. The pre-trained model achieved a high area under the precision-recall curve (0.9492) and F1 score (0.8195) for identifying AVNRT in the validation set. The total F1 scores of the lead Ⅱ, Ⅲ, Ⅴ1, 3-lead and 12-lead intelligent diagnostic models in the testing set were 0.5597, 0.6061, 0.3419, 0.6003 and 0.6136, respectively. Compared with the 12-lead classification model, the lead-Ⅲ model had a net reclassification index improvement of -0.029 (P=0.878) and an integrated discrimination index improvement of -0.005 (P=0.965). CONCLUSION: The intelligent diagnostic model based on multiscale deep neural network using wearable electrocardiogram devices has an acceptable accuracy for classifying SVT mechanisms.

A simple mechanism underlying the behavior of reentrant atrial tachycardia during ablation.

BACKGROUND: Ablation of complex atrial tachycardias (ATs) is difficult. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to elucidate a mechanism underlying the behavior of ATs during ablation and to create an algorithm to predict it. METHODS: An algorithm predicting termination/conversion of AT and the second AT circuit associated with the ablation site was developed from 52 index reentrant AT high-resolution activation maps in 45 patients (retrospective phase). First, the wavefront collision site was identified. Then, the N or N-1 beat was defined for each collision associated with the ablation site. When the AT involved wavefront collision solely between N-1/N-1 (N/N) beats, the AT would terminate during ablation. Conversely, when the AT included wavefront collision between N/N-1 beats, the index AT would convert to a second AT. The algorithm was then prospectively tested in 172 patients with 194 ATs (127 anatomic macroreentrant ATs [AMATs], 44 non-AMATs, 23 multiple-loop ATs). RESULTS: Accuracy in predicting AT termination/conversion and the second AT circuit was 95.9% overall, 96.1% in AMATs, 95.5% in non-AMATs, and 95.7% in multiple-loop ATs. Median (25th-75th percentile) absolute variation between predicted and actually observed cycle length of the second AT was 6 (4-9) ms. Prediction failure occurred in 8 ATs; either the second AT used an unmapped chamber or structure in the index map (n = 7) or a line of block was misinterpreted as very slow conduction in the index map (n = 1). CONCLUSION: A simple mechanism underlies the behavior of ATs during ablation, even in complex ATs. With a simple algorithm using high-resolution mapping, AT termination/conversion and the second AT circuit and cycle length may be predicted from the index activation map.

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.

Atypical Fast-Slow Atrioventricular Nodal Reentrant Tachycardia Incorporating a "Superior" Slow Pathway: A Distinct Supraventricular Tachyarrhythmia.

BACKGROUND: The existence of an atypical fast-slow (F/S) atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) including a superior (sup) pathway with slow conductive properties and an atrial exit near the His bundle has not been confirmed. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 6 women and 2 men (age, 74 ± 7 years) with sup-F/S-AVNRT who underwent successful radiofrequency ablation near the His bundle. Programmed ventricular stimulation induced retrograde conduction over a superior SP with an earliest atrial activation near the His bundle, a mean shortest spike-atrial interval of 378 ± 119 milliseconds, and decremental properties in all patients. sup-F/S-AVNRT was characterized by a long-RP interval; a retrograde atrial activation sequence during tachycardia identical to that over a sup-SP during ventricular pacing; ventriculoatrial dissociation during ventricular overdrive pacing of the tachycardia in 5 patients or atrioventricular block occurring during tachycardia in 3 patients, excluding atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia; termination of the tachycardia by ATP; and a V-A-V activation sequence immediately after ventricular induction or entrainment of the tachycardia, including dual atrial responses in 2 patients. Elimination or modification of retrograde conduction over the sup-SP by ablation near the right perinodal region or from the noncoronary cusp of Valsalva eliminated and confirmed the diagnosis of AVNRT in 4 patients each. CONCLUSIONS: sup-F/S-AVNRT is a distinct supraventricular tachycardia, incorporating an SP located above the Koch triangle as the retrograde limb, that can be eliminated by radiofrequency ablation.

Clinical and electrophysiological characteristics of the patients with relatively slow atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to retrospectively investigate clinical and electrophysiologic characteristics of typical AVNRT with relatively slow tachycardia rates below the average value compared to faster ones, in patients without structural heart disease. METHODS: The present study retrospectively included a total of 1,150 patients receiving successful slow-pathway radio frequency ablation for typical slow-fast AVNRT. Patients were divided into two groups according to their tachycardia cycle length: group I included 1,018 patients with tachycardia cycle length < 400 msn and group II included 132 patients with cycle length > 400 msn. Patients with another form of arrhythmia other than typical AVNRT, the existence of structural heart disease, preexisting prolonged PR interval, history of clinically documented AF, and reasons capable of causing AF were accepted as exclusion criterias. RESULTS: The patients in group II were older than those in group 1 (p=0.039), and male ratio was significantly higher in group II compared to group I (p=0.02). Wenckebach cycle length and AV node antegrade effective refractory period values before the RF ablation were significantly higher in group II compared to group I (p=0.0001 and 0.01, respectively). Right atrium effective refractory period values in both pre- and post-ablation period were significantly higher in group I compared to group II (p=0.0001 and 0.004, respectively). The existence of atrial vulnerability before ablation was significantly higher in group II compared to group I (p=0.007); however, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of atrial vulnerability after the ablation. In addition, while the ratio of anterior location as an ablation site near the His-bundle region was significantly higher in group II, the ratio of posterior location was significantly higher in group I (p=0.0001 for both). CONCLUSION: Our experience demonstrates that clinical and electrophysiologic characteristics of AVNRT patients with relatively slower tachycardia rates were quite different compared to the faster AVNRT cases.

Classification of electrophysiological types of atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia: a reappraisal.

Sequence of retrograde atrial activation is not a reliable criterion for the classification of atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia (AVNRT) into typical and atypical types. The conventional concept of a lower common pathway is not supported by current evidence and does not represent a reliable or reproducible criterion. The distinction between 'fast-slow' and 'slow-slow' forms is not unanimously defined, and probably of no practical significance. We suggest that AVNRT should be classified as typical or atypical according to the His-atrial interval or, when a His bundle electrogram is not reliably recorded, the ventriculo-atrial interval measured on the His bundle recording electrode.

Entrainment for distinguishing atypical atrioventricular node reentrant tachycardia from atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia over septal accessory pathways with long-RP [corrected] tachycardia.

BACKGROUND: 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.

[Atrioventricular nodal reciprocal tachycardia: classification, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment].

Data on prevalence, mechanisms of arrhythmogenesis and classification of atrioventricular (AV) nodal reciprocal tachycardia are presented. Clinical-electrocardiographical and electrophysiological features of typical and atypical forms of AV nodal reciprocal tachycardia are described. Main diagnostic measures are delineated and principles of tactical approach to management of patients with AV nodal reciprocal tachycardia presented. Indications to radiofrequency catheter ablation, and physical characteristics of radiofrequency interventions in the region of registration of AV junction slow part fibers potentials of lower isthmus of the right atrium are discussed. Data of analysis of comparative efficacy of pharmacological and interventional approaches to management of patients with AV nodal reciprocal tachycardia as well as spectrum of possible complications associated with surgery are also presented.

Differential entrainment distinguishes atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia from atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia.

BACKGROUND: Entrainment from the right ventricular (RV) apex and the base has been used to distinguish atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia (AVRT) from atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT). The difference in the entrainment response from the RV apex in comparison with the RV base has not been tested. METHODS: Fifty-nine consecutive patients referred for ablation of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) were included. Entrainment of SVT was performed from the RV apex and base, pacing at 10-40-ms faster than the tachycardia cycle length. SA interval was calculated from stimulus to earliest atrial electrogram. Ventricle to atrium (VA) interval was measured from the RV electrogram (apex and base) to the earliest atrial electrogram during tachycardia. The SA-VA interval from apex and base was measured and the difference between them was calculated. RESULTS: Thirty-six AVNRT and 23 AVRT patients were enrolled. Mean age was 44 ± 12 years; 52% were male. The [SA-VA]apex-[SA-VA]base was demonstrable in 84.7% of patients and measured -9.4 ± 6.6 in AVNRT and 10 ± 11.3 in AVRT, P < 0.001. The difference was negative for all AVNRT cases and positive for all septal accessory pathways (APs). CONCLUSION: The difference between entrainment from the apex and base is readily performed and is diagnostic for all AVNRTs and septal APs.

Entrainment from the para-Hisian region for differentiating atrioventricular node reentrant tachycardia from orthodromic atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia.

AIMS: The difference between the stimulus-atrial and ventriculo-atrial intervals (SA-VA) and between the post-pacing interval and the tachycardia cycle length (PPI-TCL) during entrainment from the right ventricular apex distinguishes atrioventricular node reentrant (AVNRT) from orthodromic atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia (AVRT). We hypothesized that these features still apply when entrainment is performed from the para-Hisian region. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-seven supraventricular tachycardias (34 AVNRT/13 AVRT) were included. The SA-VA and PPI-TCL were obtained in all patients by using two right-sided diagnostic catheters. In 24 of them, these measurements were also performed upon His-bundle capture during entrainment. A paced QRS widening of >or=40 ms during entrainment, when compared with the tachycardia QRS width, identified absence of His-bundle capture, P < 0.001. A SA-VA >75 ms distinguished AVNRT from AVRT, P < 0.001 (sensitivity/specificity 97%/100%). A PPI-TCL >100 ms was diagnostic of AVNRT, P < 0.001 (sensitivity/specificity 97%/92%). Upon His-bundle capture, the SA-VA and PPI-TCL shortened in AVNRT (121 +/- 23 to 66 +/- 24 ms; 139 +/- 30 to 85 +/- 31 ms, respectively, P < 0.001) and no longer differentiated AVNRT from AVRT. CONCLUSION: Para-Hisian entrainment without His-bundle capture distinguishes AVNRT from AVRT with the advantage of using only two diagnostic catheters.

Pharmacological therapy in children with atrioventricular reentry: which drug?

Atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia (AVRT) is the most common cause of supraventricular tachycardia in young children. In nearly 70% of cases, there is manifest preexcitation on electrocardiogram. In the rest, the accessory pathway is concealed. Drugs control AVRT by affecting conduction through the atrioventricular node (beta-blockers, digoxin, verapamil) or accessory pathway (flecainide, propafenone) or both (sotalol, amiodarone). Adenosine is the drug of choice in acute management of AVRT in hemodynamically stable children. In adenosine-resistant cases, intravenous flecainide, procainamide, esmolol, propafenone and amiodarone are other treatment options. Hypotension and bradycardia can occur during administration of these drugs. Verapamil may be used to treat AVRT using a concealed pathway. Verapamil should be avoided in infants and in patients with decreased cardiac function. In chronic management, catheter ablation is the preferred treatment in older children with frequent AVRT. In infants and small children, ablation is associated with higher risk, and pharmacologic management is recommended. Beta-blockers are the preferred first line drugs for chronic management. In patients with concealed accessory pathway, digoxin and calcium channel blockers are alternative options. Sotalol, flecainide, propafenone and amiodarone can be prescribed in resistant cases. Flecainide and propafenone should be avoided in children with structurally abnormal hearts because of a higher risk of proarrhythmia. The initiation of flecainide, propafenone and sotalol therapy is recommended in an inpatient setting to monitor for proarrhythmias.