Journal of electrocardiology · 2019
Impact of fasciculoventricular bypass tracts on the diagnosis and treatment of concomitant arrhythmias and cardiac diseases.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kim Yong-Giun, Nam Gi-Byoung, Cho Min Soo, Park Gyung-Min, Kim Minsu, Lee Ji Hyun, Hwang Ki Won, Kim Jun, Choi Kee-Joon, Kim You-Ho
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Fasciculoventricular (FV) bypass tracts (BTs) are the rarest form of ventricular preexcitation. Although they are not involved in clinically significant reentrant tachycardia, they may cause diagnostic and therapeutic confusion if not properly understood. This study aimed to assess the impact of FV BTs on the diagnosis and treatment of concomitant arrhythmias and cardiac diseases.
METHODS: Twenty-two patients with FV BTs who underwent electrophysiologic (EP) study were evaluated. The prevalence of concomitant arrhythmias and cardiac diseases in FV BTs was evaluated. The mechanisms of concomitant arrhythmias were determined by EP study and cardiac diseases were diagnosed by echocardiography.
RESULTS: One patient had FV BT with complete infra-Hisian atrioventricular (AV) block that mimicked a slow ventricular escape rhythm. Two patients had FV BT with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, which was misinterpreted as AV BT requiring emergency DC cardioversion. Eight patients had accompanying AV BTs. In 2 patients with AV BTs, unnecessary RF application was delivered after successful ablation of AV BT because conduction through a FV BT was mistaken for conduction through a residual AV BT. Five patients had no concomitant arrhythmia; however, two of them had hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with symptoms requiring beta-blocker. Patients had not been prescribed beta-blockers to avoid a proarrhythmic response before the EP study because the FV BTs mimicked AV BTs.
CONCLUSION: FV BTs were frequently accompanied by AV BTs or other arrhythmias and cardiac diseases. They may cause misdiagnosis and inappropriate therapy and even unnecessary RF delivery when misinterpreted as AV BTs.
METHODS: Twenty-two patients with FV BTs who underwent electrophysiologic (EP) study were evaluated. The prevalence of concomitant arrhythmias and cardiac diseases in FV BTs was evaluated. The mechanisms of concomitant arrhythmias were determined by EP study and cardiac diseases were diagnosed by echocardiography.
RESULTS: One patient had FV BT with complete infra-Hisian atrioventricular (AV) block that mimicked a slow ventricular escape rhythm. Two patients had FV BT with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, which was misinterpreted as AV BT requiring emergency DC cardioversion. Eight patients had accompanying AV BTs. In 2 patients with AV BTs, unnecessary RF application was delivered after successful ablation of AV BT because conduction through a FV BT was mistaken for conduction through a residual AV BT. Five patients had no concomitant arrhythmia; however, two of them had hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with symptoms requiring beta-blocker. Patients had not been prescribed beta-blockers to avoid a proarrhythmic response before the EP study because the FV BTs mimicked AV BTs.
CONCLUSION: FV BTs were frequently accompanied by AV BTs or other arrhythmias and cardiac diseases. They may cause misdiagnosis and inappropriate therapy and even unnecessary RF delivery when misinterpreted as AV BTs.