BACKGROUND: Atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT) is based on the concept of dual AV node pathways that are functionally and anatomically distinct. The bigger coronary sinus ostium (CSO) in patients with AVNRT compared to other supraventricular tachycardias (SVTs) may produce separation of atrial inputs into the AV node or create anisotropic conduction, thus giving rise to a different AV nodal physiology. Previous studies measuring the size of the CSO using CS angiography between patients with AVNRT and other SVTs showed conflicting results. Besides, no previous studies have compared the CS morphology of the different forms of AVNRT. OBJECTIVES: This study compares the size and morphology of the CS among patients with typical AVNRT, atypical AVNRT and accessory pathways mediated reentrant tachycardia (AVRT). METHODS: Ninety-six patients with clinically documented SVTs were divided into three groups. The diameter of the CS was measured in LAO projection during end ventricular systole (by choosing the last ventricular inward motion). The CSO as well as 5, 10 and 15 mm inside the CS were measured. CS morphology is defined as either wind-sock shape or tubular shape. RESULTS: The size of the CS ostium was 13.58 +/- 3.98, 15.93 +/- 4.86 and 12.50 +/- 2.83 mm for the atypical AVNRT, typical AVNRT and AVRT, respectively (p = 0.03). There was significant difference in the size of the CS from the ostium until 15 mm into the CS between 1) typical AVNRT and AVRT, 2) typical AVNRT and atypical AVNRT. Typical and atypical AVNRT patients had more windsock morphology CS (13/32, 40.6% and 10/32, 31.2%) compared to AVRT which had only one (1/32, 3.1%) windsock morphology (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The easier CS cannulation in patients with typical AVNRT could be due to a bigger CS size and to a more windsock morphology. The CS size and morphology may be a very important substrate of tachycardia in patients with AVNRT.
BACKGROUND: Atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT) is based on the concept of dual AV node pathways that are functionally and anatomically distinct. The bigger coronary sinus ostium (CSO) in patients with AVNRT compared to other supraventricular tachycardias (SVTs) may produce separation of atrial inputs into the AV node or create anisotropic conduction, thus giving rise to a different AV nodal physiology. Previous studies measuring the size of the CSO using CS angiography between patients with AVNRT and other SVTs showed conflicting results. Besides, no previous studies have compared the CS morphology of the different forms of AVNRT. OBJECTIVES: This study compares the size and morphology of the CS among patients with typical AVNRT, atypical AVNRT and accessory pathways mediated reentrant tachycardia (AVRT). METHODS: Ninety-six patients with clinically documented SVTs were divided into three groups. The diameter of the CS was measured in LAO projection during end ventricular systole (by choosing the last ventricular inward motion). The CSO as well as 5, 10 and 15 mm inside the CS were measured. CS morphology is defined as either wind-sock shape or tubular shape. RESULTS: The size of the CS ostium was 13.58 +/- 3.98, 15.93 +/- 4.86 and 12.50 +/- 2.83 mm for the atypical AVNRT, typical AVNRT and AVRT, respectively (p = 0.03). There was significant difference in the size of the CS from the ostium until 15 mm into the CS between 1) typical AVNRT and AVRT, 2) typical AVNRT and atypical AVNRT. Typical and atypical AVNRT patients had more windsock morphology CS (13/32, 40.6% and 10/32, 31.2%) compared to AVRT which had only one (1/32, 3.1%) windsock morphology (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The easier CS cannulation in patients with typical AVNRT could be due to a bigger CS size and to a more windsock morphology. The CS size and morphology may be a very important substrate of tachycardia in patients with AVNRT.
Authors: C T Tai; S A Chen; C E Chiang; S H Lee; C W Chiou; K C Ueng; Z C Wen; Y J Chen; M S Chang Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1996-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: W M Jackman; K J Beckman; J H McClelland; X Wang; K J Friday; C A Roman; K P Moulton; N Twidale; H A Hazlitt; M I Prior Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1992-07-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: S A Chen; C E Chiang; W P Tsang; C P Hsia; D C Wang; H I Yeh; C T Ting; W C Chuen; C J Yang; C C Cheng Journal: Am Heart J Date: 1993-01 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Matthew B Ambrose; Jennifer N Avari Silva; Michael Rudokas; Tammy M Bowman; Joshua Murphy; George F Van Hare Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2018-02-03 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Grzegorz Staskiewicz; Elzbieta Czekajska-Chehab; Jerzy Przegalinski; Andrzej Tomaszewski; Kamil Torres; Anna Torres; Agnieszka Trojanowska; Ryszard Maciejewski; Andrzej Drop Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-01-13 Impact factor: 5.315