Premium
Electrophysiological markers predicting impeding AV‐block during ablation of atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia
Author(s) -
Fragakis Nikolaos,
Krexi Lydia,
Kyriakou Panagiota,
Sotiriadou Melani,
Lazaridis Charalambos,
Karamanolis Athanasios,
Dalampyras Panagiotis,
Tsakiroglou Stelios,
Skeberis Vassilios,
Tsalikakis Dimitrios,
Vassilikos Vassilios
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
pacing and clinical electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.686
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1540-8159
pISSN - 0147-8389
DOI - 10.1111/pace.13245
Subject(s) - medicine , ablation , cardiology , reentry , catheter ablation , coronary sinus , tachycardia , radiofrequency ablation , bundle branch block , bundle of his , right bundle branch block , electrocardiography , electrical conduction system of the heart
Background Radiofrequency (RF) ablation of the slow pathway (SP) in atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT) is occasionally complicated with atrioventricular block (AVB) often predicted by junctional beats (JB) with loss of ventriculo‐atrial (VA) conduction. Methods We analyzed retrospectively 153 patients undergoing ablation of SP for typical AVNRT. Patients were divided into two age groups: 127 ≤ 70 years and 26 > 70 years. We analyzed the interval between the atrial electrogram in the His‐bundle position and the distal ablation catheter [A(H)‐A(RFd)] and between the distal ablation catheter and the proximal coronary sinus catheter [A(RFd)‐A(CS)] before RF applications with and without JB. We evaluated if these intervals can be used as predictors of JB incidence and also of JB with loss of VA conduction. We also assessed if age influences the risk of loss of VA conduction. Results The A(H)‐A(RFd) and A(RFd)‐A(CS) intervals were significantly shorter in RF applications causing JB than those without JB (33 ± 11 ms vs 39 ± 9 ms, P < 0.001, 14 ± 9 ms vs 20 ± 7 ms, P < 0.001, respectively). The A(H)‐A(RFd) and A(RFd)‐A(CS) intervals were also significantly shorter in RFs causing JB with VA block than those with VA conduction (29 ± 11 ms vs 35 ± 11 ms, P < 0.001, 8 ± 8 ms vs 17 ± 8 ms, P < 0.001, respectively). Patients > 70 years had shorter intervals (36 ± 11 ms vs 29 ± 8 ms, P = 0.012, 17 ± 8 ms vs 13 ± 7 ms, P = 0.027, respectively), while VA block was more common in this age group. Conclusions The A(H)‐A(RFd) and A(RFd)‐A(CS) intervals can be used as markers for predicting JB occurrence as well as impending AVB. JB with loss of VA conduction occur more often in older patients possibly due to a higher position of SP.