Hung-Kai Huang1,2, Fa-Po Chung1,3, Yenn-Jiang Lin4,5, Shih-Lin Chang1,3, Li-Wei Lo1,3, Yu-Feng Hu1,3, Ta-Chuan Tuan1,3, Tze-Fan Chao1,3, Jo-Nan Liao1,3, Chin-Yu Lin1,3, Yao-Ting Chang1,3, Abigail Louise D Te1,3, Shinya Yamada1,3, Shih-Ann Chen1,3. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, 201, Sec. 2, Shih-Pai Road, Taipei, Taiwan. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan. 3. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. 4. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, 201, Sec. 2, Shih-Pai Road, Taipei, Taiwan. linyennjiang@gmail.com. 5. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. linyennjiang@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Differentiation between idiopathic left posterior fascicular ventricular arrhythmias (LPF-VAs) and posterior papillary muscle (PPM) VAs is of clinical value. This study aimed to develop an algorithm to distinguish PPM-VAs from LPF-VAs. METHODS: This study enrolled 73 consecutive cases, including 31 with PPM-VAs and 42 with LPF-VAs, undergoing successful ablation by using 3D mapping and intracardiac echography to confirm the origin of the VAs. Electrocardiographic and electrophysiological parameters were compared between two groups. RESULTS: The 12-lead electrocardiography of the PPM-VAs was characterized by a longer QRS duration than that in LPF-VAs (154.4 ± 14.5 vs. 132.3 ± 13.1 ms, P < 0.001). A QRS duration ≥133 ms was observed in all patients (100%) with PPM-VAs and 13/42 (31.0%) patients with LPF-VAs. The conduction duration from the earliest left ventricular activation site of the VA to the proximal right bundle branch (VA-RBB) was longer in patients with PPM-VAs than LPF-VAs (51.3 ± 12.2 vs. 23.6 ± 7.7 ms, P < 0.001). Based on the ROC analysis, a VA-RBB >36 ms was recognized in 28/31 patients with PPM-VAs (90.3%) and 2/42 with LPF-VAs (4.8%). An algorithm incorporating a QRS duration of ≥133 ms with a conduction duration of a VA-RBB of >36 ms could yield a sensitivity of 90.3% and specificity of 100% for discriminating PPM-VAs from LPF-VAs. CONCLUSIONS: The novel algorithm incorporating a QRS duration of ≥133 ms with a conduction duration of the VA-RBB of >36 ms could be useful in differentiating PPM-VAs from LPF-VAs.
PURPOSE: Differentiation between idiopathic left posterior fascicular ventricular arrhythmias (LPF-VAs) and posterior papillary muscle (PPM) VAs is of clinical value. This study aimed to develop an algorithm to distinguish PPM-VAs from LPF-VAs. METHODS: This study enrolled 73 consecutive cases, including 31 with PPM-VAs and 42 with LPF-VAs, undergoing successful ablation by using 3D mapping and intracardiac echography to confirm the origin of the VAs. Electrocardiographic and electrophysiological parameters were compared between two groups. RESULTS: The 12-lead electrocardiography of the PPM-VAs was characterized by a longer QRS duration than that in LPF-VAs (154.4 ± 14.5 vs. 132.3 ± 13.1 ms, P < 0.001). A QRS duration ≥133 ms was observed in all patients (100%) with PPM-VAs and 13/42 (31.0%) patients with LPF-VAs. The conduction duration from the earliest left ventricular activation site of the VA to the proximal right bundle branch (VA-RBB) was longer in patients with PPM-VAs than LPF-VAs (51.3 ± 12.2 vs. 23.6 ± 7.7 ms, P < 0.001). Based on the ROC analysis, a VA-RBB >36 ms was recognized in 28/31 patients with PPM-VAs (90.3%) and 2/42 with LPF-VAs (4.8%). An algorithm incorporating a QRS duration of ≥133 ms with a conduction duration of a VA-RBB of >36 ms could yield a sensitivity of 90.3% and specificity of 100% for discriminating PPM-VAs from LPF-VAs. CONCLUSIONS: The novel algorithm incorporating a QRS duration of ≥133 ms with a conduction duration of the VA-RBB of >36 ms could be useful in differentiating PPM-VAs from LPF-VAs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Left posterior fascicular; Posterior papillary muscle; Right bundle branch; Ventricular arrhythmia
Authors: Sanjay Dixit; Edward P Gerstenfeld; David Lin; David J Callans; Henry H Hsia; Hemal M Nayak; Erica Zado; Francis E Marchlinski Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Miki Yokokawa; Eric Good; Benoit Desjardins; Thomas Crawford; Krit Jongnarangsin; Aman Chugh; Frank Pelosi; Hakan Oral; Fred Morady; Frank Bogun Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2010-07-14 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Frank Bogun; Benoit Desjardins; Thomas Crawford; Eric Good; Krit Jongnarangsin; Hakan Oral; Aman Chugh; Frank Pelosi; Fred Morady Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Gustavo Lopera; William G Stevenson; Kyoko Soejima; William H Maisel; Bruce Koplan; John L Sapp; S Dinakar Satti; Laurence M Epstein Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2004-01
Authors: Harish Doppalapudi; Takumi Yamada; H Thomas McElderry; Vance J Plumb; Andrew E Epstein; G Neal Kay Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2008-04
Authors: A Nogami; S Naito; H Tada; K Taniguchi; Y Okamoto; S Nishimura; Y Yamauchi; K Aonuma; M Goya; Y Iesaka; M Hiroe Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 27.203