Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2015
Performance of the SA-VA Difference to Differentiate Atrioventricular Nodal Reentrant Tachycardia from Orthodromic Reentrant Tachycardia in a Large Cohort of Consecutive Patients.
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.
Akerström Finn, Pachón Marta, García-Fernández Francisco Javier, Puchol Alberto, Salgado Ricardo, Rodríguez-Padial Luis, Arias Miguel A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The stimulus-atrial (SA) interval minus ventriculoatrial (VA) interval (SA-VA) difference represents a simple diagnostic maneuver to distinguish between atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) and orthodromic reentrant tachycardia (ORT) during electrophysiology study. However, its usefulness has largely been studied in selected patient subgroups. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the SA-VA difference against commonly used diagnostic maneuvers in a large cohort of consecutive patients.
METHODS: Consecutive patients with inducible supraventricular tachycardia and successful entrainment through pacing trains from right ventricular apex during an electrophysiological study were included. Atrial tachycardias were excluded. The following intervals were calculated for each patient: SA-VA difference, His potential, and atrial electrogram during entrainment minus His potential and atrial electrogram during tachycardia, and the corrected return cycle.
RESULTS: A total of 456 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which electrophysiological study revealed 265 typical AVNRT, 38 atypical AVNRT, and 54 and 108 ORT through a septal and free-wall accessory pathway, respectively. An SA-VA difference >99 ms identified AVNRT in all patients with sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of 97.7%, 96.9%, 98.3%, and 95.7%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the high ability to distinguish AVNRT from ORT using the SA-VA difference, not only in selected patient subgroups, but as whole when a cut-off of >99 ms is used.
METHODS: Consecutive patients with inducible supraventricular tachycardia and successful entrainment through pacing trains from right ventricular apex during an electrophysiological study were included. Atrial tachycardias were excluded. The following intervals were calculated for each patient: SA-VA difference, His potential, and atrial electrogram during entrainment minus His potential and atrial electrogram during tachycardia, and the corrected return cycle.
RESULTS: A total of 456 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which electrophysiological study revealed 265 typical AVNRT, 38 atypical AVNRT, and 54 and 108 ORT through a septal and free-wall accessory pathway, respectively. An SA-VA difference >99 ms identified AVNRT in all patients with sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of 97.7%, 96.9%, 98.3%, and 95.7%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the high ability to distinguish AVNRT from ORT using the SA-VA difference, not only in selected patient subgroups, but as whole when a cut-off of >99 ms is used.