BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that unresponsiveness of superior sinoatrial node (SAN) to sympathetic stimulation is strongly associated with the development of symptomatic bradycardia in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed 3D endocardial mapping in healthy controls (group 1, n=10) and patients with AF without (group 2, n=57) or with (group 3, n=15) symptomatic bradycardia at baseline and during isoproterenol infusion. Corrected SAN recovery time was abnormal in 0%, 11%, and 36% of groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P=0.02). At baseline, 90%, 26%, and 7% (P<0.001) of the patients had multicentric SAN activation patterns. For groups 1, 2, and 3, the median distance from the superior vena cava-right atrial junction to the most cranial earliest activation site (EAS) was 5.0 (25-75 percentile range, 3.5-21.3), 10.0 (4-20), and 17.5 (12-34) mm at baseline (P=0.01), respectively, and 4.0 (0-5), 5.0 (1-10), and 15.0 (5.4-33.3) mm, respectively, during isoproterenol infusion (P=0.01), suggesting an upward shift of EAS during isoproterenol infusion. However, although the EAS during isoproterenol infusion was at the upper one third of the crista terminalis in 100% of group 1 and 78% of group 2 patients, only 20% of group 3 patients showed a move of the EAS to that region (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Superior SAN serves as the EAS during sympathetic stimulation in patients without AF and in most patients with AF without symptomatic bradycardia. In contrast, unresponsiveness of superior SAN to sympathetic stimulation is a characteristic finding in patients with AF and symptomatic bradycardia.
BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that unresponsiveness of superior sinoatrial node (SAN) to sympathetic stimulation is strongly associated with the development of symptomatic bradycardia in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed 3D endocardial mapping in healthy controls (group 1, n=10) and patients with AF without (group 2, n=57) or with (group 3, n=15) symptomatic bradycardia at baseline and during isoproterenol infusion. Corrected SAN recovery time was abnormal in 0%, 11%, and 36% of groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P=0.02). At baseline, 90%, 26%, and 7% (P<0.001) of the patients had multicentric SAN activation patterns. For groups 1, 2, and 3, the median distance from the superior vena cava-right atrial junction to the most cranial earliest activation site (EAS) was 5.0 (25-75 percentile range, 3.5-21.3), 10.0 (4-20), and 17.5 (12-34) mm at baseline (P=0.01), respectively, and 4.0 (0-5), 5.0 (1-10), and 15.0 (5.4-33.3) mm, respectively, during isoproterenol infusion (P=0.01), suggesting an upward shift of EAS during isoproterenol infusion. However, although the EAS during isoproterenol infusion was at the upper one third of the crista terminalis in 100% of group 1 and 78% of group 2 patients, only 20% of group 3 patients showed a move of the EAS to that region (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Superior SAN serves as the EAS during sympathetic stimulation in patients without AF and in most patients with AF without symptomatic bradycardia. In contrast, unresponsiveness of superior SAN to sympathetic stimulation is a characteristic finding in patients with AF and symptomatic bradycardia.
Authors: Andrew E Epstein; John P Dimarco; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; N A Mark Estes; Roger A Freedman; Leonard S Gettes; A Marc Gillinov; Gabriel Gregoratos; Stephen C Hammill; David L Hayes; Mark A Hlatky; L Kristin Newby; Richard L Page; Mark H Schoenfeld; Michael J Silka; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Michael O Sweeney Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2008-05-19 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Nassir F Marrouche; Salwa Beheiry; Gery Tomassoni; Christopher Cole; Dianna Bash; Thomas Dresing; Walid Saliba; Ahmad Abdul-Karim; Patrick Tchou; Robert Schweikert; Fabio Leonelli; Andrea Natale Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-03-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Prashanthan Sanders; Joseph B Morton; Peter M Kistler; Steven J Spence; Neil C Davidson; Azlan Hussin; Jitendra K Vohra; Paul B Sparks; Jonathan M Kalman Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-03-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Prashanthan Sanders; Peter M Kistler; Joseph B Morton; Steven J Spence; Jonathan M Kalman Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-08-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Vadim V Fedorov; Richard B Schuessler; Matthew Hemphill; Christina M Ambrosi; Roger Chang; Alexandra S Voloshina; Kathy Brown; William J Hucker; Igor R Efimov Journal: Circ Res Date: 2009-02-26 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Andrea Uradu; Juyi Wan; Anisiia Doytchinova; Keith C Wright; Andrew Y T Lin; Lan S Chen; Changyu Shen; Shien-Fong Lin; Thomas H Everett; Peng-Sheng Chen Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2017-03-24 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Ning Li; Brian J Hansen; Thomas A Csepe; Jichao Zhao; Anthony J Ignozzi; Lidiya V Sul; Stanislav O Zakharkin; Anuradha Kalyanasundaram; Jonathan P Davis; Brandon J Biesiadecki; Ahmet Kilic; Paul M L Janssen; Peter J Mohler; Raul Weiss; John D Hummel; Vadim V Fedorov Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: G Garret; D G Laţcu; S S Bun; B Enache; K Hasni; A Moustfa; N Saoudi Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2021-01-29 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Yufan Yang; Yuan Yuan; Johnson Wong; Michael C Fishbein; Peng-Sheng Chen; Thomas H Everett Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2021-01-08
Authors: M Choudhury; N Black; A Alghamdi; A D'Souza; R Wang; J Yanni; H Dobrzynski; P A Kingston; H Zhang; M R Boyett; G M Morris Journal: J Physiol Date: 2018-10-13 Impact factor: 5.182