AIMS: Discerning supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) mechanism during catheter ablation procedures can be difficult and time-consuming, which, when combined with diagnostic error, places patients at risk of unnecessary complications. Distinguishing atrial tachycardia (AT) from AV nodal re-entry tachycardia (AVNRT) may be particularly vexatious. Value-added techniques are thus always welcome, particularly if they are not time-consuming nor require complex intracardiac lead configurations. In this study, we assessed whether a new technique, simultaneous right atrial and right ventricular pacing (RA + RV) during ongoing SVT, met these criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using a simple intracardiac lead configuration (right atrial appendage, His bundle, right ventricular apex), the response to RA + RV delivered at 80-90% of the SVT cycle length, was examined in 80 patients referred for catheter ablation. In each patient, the actual tachycardia mechanism was adjudicated by standard electrophysiologic criteria ± successful catheter ablation. Mechanisms of SVT included, non-exclusively, AVNRT (24 patients), accessory pathway-mediated (orthodromic) re-entry (AVRT; 23 patients), AT (10 patients), and sinus tachycardia (ST induced with isoproterenol; 49 patients). Immediately after cessation of RA + RV pacing during persistent SVT, the first intracardiac electrogram observed was right atrial in all AT whereas it was His bundle in all AVNRT. The response during AVRT was mixed. CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary evaluation, RA + RV pacing appears to add value to the existing armamentarium of electrophysiologic indices to discern SVT mechanism, in particular with respect to discriminating between AVNRT and AT.
AIMS: Discerning supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) mechanism during catheter ablation procedures can be difficult and time-consuming, which, when combined with diagnostic error, places patients at risk of unnecessary complications. Distinguishing atrial tachycardia (AT) from AV nodal re-entry tachycardia (AVNRT) may be particularly vexatious. Value-added techniques are thus always welcome, particularly if they are not time-consuming nor require complex intracardiac lead configurations. In this study, we assessed whether a new technique, simultaneous right atrial and right ventricular pacing (RA + RV) during ongoing SVT, met these criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using a simple intracardiac lead configuration (right atrial appendage, His bundle, right ventricular apex), the response to RA + RV delivered at 80-90% of the SVT cycle length, was examined in 80 patients referred for catheter ablation. In each patient, the actual tachycardia mechanism was adjudicated by standard electrophysiologic criteria ± successful catheter ablation. Mechanisms of SVT included, non-exclusively, AVNRT (24 patients), accessory pathway-mediated (orthodromic) re-entry (AVRT; 23 patients), AT (10 patients), and sinus tachycardia (ST induced with isoproterenol; 49 patients). Immediately after cessation of RA + RV pacing during persistent SVT, the first intracardiac electrogram observed was right atrial in all AT whereas it was His bundle in all AVNRT. The response during AVRT was mixed. CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary evaluation, RA + RV pacing appears to add value to the existing armamentarium of electrophysiologic indices to discern SVT mechanism, in particular with respect to discriminating between AVNRT and AT.