The 'double transition': a novel electrocardiogram sign to discriminate posteroseptal accessory pathways ablated from the right endocardium from those requiring a left-sided or epicardial coronary venous approach.

AIMS: The precise localization of manifest posteroseptal accessory pathways (APs) often poses diagnostic challenges considering that a small area may encompass AP that may be ablated from the right or left endocardium, or epicardially within the coronary sinus (CS). We sought to explore whether the QRS transition pattern in the precordial lead may help to discriminate the necessary ablation approach. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients who underwent a successful ablation of a single manifest AP over a 5-year period were included. Standard 12-lead electrocardiograms were reviewed. A total of 273 patients were identified. Mean age was 31 ± 15 years and 62% were male. Of the 110 identified posteroseptal AP, 64 were ablated from the right endocardium, 33 from the left endocardium, and 13 inside the CS. While a normal precordial QRS transition was most often observed, a subset of 33 patients presented an atypical 'double transition' pattern which specifically identified right endocardial AP. The combination of a q wave in V1 with a proportion of the positive QRS component in V1 < V2 > V3, predicted a right endocardial AP with a 100% specificity. In case of a positive QRS sum in V2, this 'double transition' pattern predicted a posteroseptal right endocardial AP with 99.5% specificity and 44% sensitivity. The positive predictive value was 97%. The only false positive was a midseptal AP. In the case of a negative or isoelectric QRS sum in V2, APs were located more laterally on the tricuspid annulus. CONCLUSION: The combination of a q wave in V1 with a double QRS transition pattern in the precordial leads is highly specific of a right endocardial AP and rules out the need for CS or left-sided mapping.

Preprocedural Discrimination of Posteroseptal Accessory Pathways Ablated from the Right Endocardium from Those Requiring a Left-sided or Epicardial Coronary Venous Approach.

The success of radiofrequency catheter ablation of the accessory pathway (AP) depends on the accurate localisation of the bypass tract. In that respect, posteroseptal or inferior paraseptal APs often pose a diagnostic challenge because of the complex anatomy at the crux of the four cardiac chambers. Considering the differences in procedure risks and success rate depending on the need for a left-sided approach or a coronary sinus ablation, an accurate anticipation of the precise location of inferior paraseptal APs is critical to inform the consent process and guide the initial mapping strategy. Here, the preprocedural clues to discriminate APs that can be ablated from the right atrium, from those requiring a left-sided or epicardial coronary venous approach, are reviewed. Both manifest and concealed APs will be considered and, following the diagnostic process made by the operator before interpretation of the intra-cardiac signals, each of the following aspects will be addressed: clinical context and initial probability; and 12-lead ECG analysis during baseline ECG with manifest AP, maximal preexcitation, and orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia.

Yield of the electrophysiological study in patients with new-onset left bundle branch block after transcathether aortic valve replacement: The PR interval matters.

Background: Studies suggest that performing an electrophysiological study (EPS) may be useful to identify patients with new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) post-TAVR at risk of atrioventricular block. However, tools to optimize the yield of such strategy are needed. We therefore aimed to investigate whether 12-lead ECG changes post-TAVR may help identify patients with abnormal EPS findings. Materials and methods: Consecutive patients with new-onset LBBB post-TAVR who underwent EPS were included. PR and QRS intervals were measured on 12-lead ECG pre-TAVR and during EPS. Abnormal EPS was defined as an HV interval > 55 ms. Results: Among 61 patients, 28 (46%) had an HV interval > 55 ms after TAVR. Post-TAVR PR interval and ΔPR (PR-post-pre-TAVR) were significantly longer in patients with prolonged HV (PR: 188 ± 38 vs. 228 ± 34 ms, p < 0.001, ΔPR: 10 ± 30 vs. 34 ± 23 ms, p = 0.001), while no difference was found in QRS duration. PR and ΔPR intervals both effectively discriminated patients with HV > 55 ms (AUC = 0.804 and 0.769, respectively; p < 0.001). A PR > 200 ms identified patients with abnormal EPS results with a sensitivity of 89% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 88%. ΔPR ≥ 20 ms alone provided a somewhat lower sensitivity (64%) but combining both criteria (i.e., PR > 200 ms or ΔPR ≥ 20 ms) identified almost every patients with abnormal HV (sensitivity = 96%, NPV = 95%). Selecting EPS candidate based on both criteria would avoid 1/3 of exams. Conclusion: PR interval assessment may be useful to select patients with new-onset LBBB after TAVR who may benefit most from an EPS. In patients with PR ≤ 200 ms and ΔPR < 20 ms the likelihood of abnormal EPS is very low independently of QRS changes.