BACKGROUND: A complete line of block (CLOB) in the cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) is the endpoint of typical atrial flutter ablation. Before CTI block is obtained, a progressive CTI conduction delay due to an incomplete line of block (InLOB) can be difficult to distinguish from CLOB. The purpose of this study was to assess a new simple approach based on the changes in atrio-ventricular (AV) conduction delays during septal and lateral right atrial pacing, to distinguish a CLOB from an InLOB during typical atrial flutter (AFL) ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty patients who presented an InLOB before a CLOB, and a stable (AV) conduction delay at 600 ms cycle length pacing (when in sinus rhythm), during AFL ablation were included in this study. A 24-pole mapping catheter was positioned so that 2 adjacent dipoles bracketed the targeted CTI line of block (LOB), with proximal dipoles lateral to the LOB and distal dipoles in the coronary sinus. Two pacing sites were lateral (position L1 and L2) and one was septal (position S) to the LOB, with locations L1 and S closest to the LOB. During L1, L2 and S site pacing, the delay between the pacing artefact and the peak of the R wave in a surface ECG (lead II) was measured. We measured the following conduction delays (mean +/- SD in ms), during InLOB versus CLOB: (L1 to R) 320.5 +/- 68.0 versus 367.0 +/- 62.0, p = 0.001; (L2 to R) 333.0 +/- 59.0 versus 338.0 +/- 62.0, p = 0.663, (S to R) 259.4 +/- 51.5 versus 247.1 +/- 55.5, p = 0.987. We calculated the following data during an InLOB versus a CLOB: (L1R-L2R) -12.3 +/- 7 versus 20.2 +/- 12.7, p = 0.001; (L1R-SR) 51.1 +/- 21.5 versus 120.1 +/- 16.6, p < 0.05. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for CLOB with (L1R-SR > 94 ms) and with (L1R-L2R > 0 ms) were respectively; 100%, 98%, 98% and 100%. CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes that lateral versus septal right atrial pacing sites combined with the measure of AV conduction delay on a surface ECG can be useful to distinguish a CLOB from an InLOB during AFL ablation.
BACKGROUND: A complete line of block (CLOB) in the cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) is the endpoint of typical atrial flutter ablation. Before CTI block is obtained, a progressive CTI conduction delay due to an incomplete line of block (InLOB) can be difficult to distinguish from CLOB. The purpose of this study was to assess a new simple approach based on the changes in atrio-ventricular (AV) conduction delays during septal and lateral right atrial pacing, to distinguish a CLOB from an InLOB during typical atrial flutter (AFL) ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty patients who presented an InLOB before a CLOB, and a stable (AV) conduction delay at 600 ms cycle length pacing (when in sinus rhythm), during AFL ablation were included in this study. A 24-pole mapping catheter was positioned so that 2 adjacent dipoles bracketed the targeted CTI line of block (LOB), with proximal dipoles lateral to the LOB and distal dipoles in the coronary sinus. Two pacing sites were lateral (position L1 and L2) and one was septal (position S) to the LOB, with locations L1 and S closest to the LOB. During L1, L2 and S site pacing, the delay between the pacing artefact and the peak of the R wave in a surface ECG (lead II) was measured. We measured the following conduction delays (mean +/- SD in ms), during InLOB versus CLOB: (L1 to R) 320.5 +/- 68.0 versus 367.0 +/- 62.0, p = 0.001; (L2 to R) 333.0 +/- 59.0 versus 338.0 +/- 62.0, p = 0.663, (S to R) 259.4 +/- 51.5 versus 247.1 +/- 55.5, p = 0.987. We calculated the following data during an InLOB versus a CLOB: (L1R-L2R) -12.3 +/- 7 versus 20.2 +/- 12.7, p = 0.001; (L1R-SR) 51.1 +/- 21.5 versus 120.1 +/- 16.6, p < 0.05. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for CLOB with (L1R-SR > 94 ms) and with (L1R-L2R > 0 ms) were respectively; 100%, 98%, 98% and 100%. CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes that lateral versus septal right atrial pacing sites combined with the measure of AV conduction delay on a surface ECG can be useful to distinguish a CLOB from an InLOB during AFL ablation.
Authors: J Chen; C de Chillou; T Basiouny; N Sadoul; J D Filho; I Magnin-Poull; M Messier; E Aliot Journal: Circulation Date: 1999 Dec 21-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: H Tada; H Oral; C Sticherling; S P Chough; R L Baker; K Wasmer; F Pelosi; B P Knight; S A Strickberger; F Morady Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: D Klug; D Lacroix; C Marquié; G Mairesse; D Alix; S Dennetière; B d'Hautefeuille; N Zghal; S Kacet Journal: Europace Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: A Arenal; J Almendral; J M Alday; J Villacastín; J M Ormaetxe; J L Sande; N Perez-Castellano; S Gonzalez; M Ortiz; J L Delcán Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-06-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: G Kirkorian; E Moncada; P Chevalier; G Canu; J P Claudel; C Bellon; L Lyon; P Touboul Journal: Circulation Date: 1994-12 Impact factor: 29.690