PURPOSE: To determine the clinical importance of a bi-directional line of block demonstration in the inferior vena cava-tricuspid annulus isthmus as an end-point for radiofrequency (RF) atrial flutter (FL) ablation. METHODS: Forty consecutive patients (51 +/- 11 years) with type I FL were divided in 2 groups: GI (30 patients) anatomic, non-electrophysiologic isthmus ablation technique (interruption and non-induction FL criteria); and GII (10 patients) anatomic with electrophysiologic evaluation of bi-directional isthmus conduction. The isthmus activation was analyzed before and after anatomic RF ablation with a cateter exploring each side of the line of block, depending on the conduction evaluation (anterograde or retrograde). RESULTS: FL was interrupted and not reinduced in 26/ 30 (86.6%) GI patients and in 10 (100%) GII patients (p = 0.5558). During follow-up FL recurred in 30% of the patients in both groups. In GII, 6 patients with bi-directional block remained assymptomatic, whereas 3 patients with unidirectional block presented recurrence (p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Electrophysiologic demonstration of bidirectional line of block in the isthmus is related to long-term success and should be the criterion for interruption of type I atrial FL RF ablation.
PURPOSE: To determine the clinical importance of a bi-directional line of block demonstration in the inferior vena cava-tricuspid annulus isthmus as an end-point for radiofrequency (RF) atrial flutter (FL) ablation. METHODS: Forty consecutive patients (51 +/- 11 years) with type I FL were divided in 2 groups: GI (30 patients) anatomic, non-electrophysiologic isthmus ablation technique (interruption and non-induction FL criteria); and GII (10 patients) anatomic with electrophysiologic evaluation of bi-directional isthmus conduction. The isthmus activation was analyzed before and after anatomic RF ablation with a cateter exploring each side of the line of block, depending on the conduction evaluation (anterograde or retrograde). RESULTS: FL was interrupted and not reinduced in 26/ 30 (86.6%) GIpatients and in 10 (100%) GII patients (p = 0.5558). During follow-up FL recurred in 30% of the patients in both groups. In GII, 6 patients with bi-directional block remained assymptomatic, whereas 3 patients with unidirectional block presented recurrence (p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Electrophysiologic demonstration of bidirectional line of block in the isthmus is related to long-term success and should be the criterion for interruption of type I atrial FL RF ablation.