Kivanc Yalin1, Ebru Golcuk2, Ekrem Bilal Karaayvaz3, Tolga Aksu4, Muhammet Arslane5, Selma Kenar Tiryakioglu1, Ahmet Kaya Bilge6, Kamil Adalet6. 1. Uşak University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Cardiology, Uşak-Turkey. 2. Balıkesir University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Cardiology, Baslıkesir-Turkey. 3. Bagcilar Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul-Turkey. 4. Kocaeli Derince Education and Research Hospital, Cardiology Clinic, Kocaeli-Turkey. 5. Medtronic Turkey Office, Istanbul-Turkey. 6. Istanbul University, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Department of Cardiology, Istanbul-Turkey.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Failure to differentiate supraventricular from ventricular arrhythmias is the most frequent cause of inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapies. We hypothesized that the postpacing interval (PPI) after overdrive right ventricular pacing may differentiate ventricular (VT) from supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) such as sinus tachycardia, atrial flutter and atrial tachycardia. This hypothesis is based on the entrainment maneuver. Reentrant tachycardia circuit for VTs would haveshorter distance to RV apex than SVTs have, and the conduction time between a ventricular pacing site and the tachycardia origin is expected to be shorter in VTs than in SVTs. METHODS: 220episodes from 38 patients with single chamber ICDs that RV overdrive pacing could not terminate or change the tachycardia cycle length (TCL) were retrospectively reviewed. Episodes were classified as VTs (n=115) and SVTs (n=105). TCLs, PPIs and PPI-TCL were compared between groups. RESULTS: The cycle length of VTs was shorter than SVTs (320.6±30.3 vs 366.5±40 ms, p=0.001). PPI and PPI-TCL of VTs were shorter than SVTs (504.7±128.3 vs 689.2±121.8 ms, p=0.001, 184±103 vs 322.6±106.6 ms, p=0.001; respectively). ROC curve analysis demonstrated a 525 ms cut-off value for PPI has 89% sensitivity and 57.4% specificity to predict inappropriate ICD therapies due to SVTs (AUC:0.852). Similarly, A PPI-TCL <195 ms favored VT as a diagnosis rather than SVT with a 90% sensitivity, and 51% specificity (AUC:0.838). CONCLUSION: Analyzing of PPI during overdrive pacing from RV apex may discriminate supraventricular from ventricular tachycardia. This criterion may have a potential role in implantable devices that use a single ventricular lead.
INTRODUCTION: Failure to differentiate supraventricular from ventricular arrhythmias is the most frequent cause of inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapies. We hypothesized that the postpacing interval (PPI) after overdrive right ventricular pacing may differentiate ventricular (VT) from supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) such as sinus tachycardia, atrial flutter and atrial tachycardia. This hypothesis is based on the entrainment maneuver. Reentrant tachycardia circuit for VTs would haveshorter distance to RV apex than SVTs have, and the conduction time between a ventricular pacing site and the tachycardia origin is expected to be shorter in VTs than in SVTs. METHODS: 220episodes from 38 patients with single chamber ICDs that RV overdrive pacing could not terminate or change the tachycardia cycle length (TCL) were retrospectively reviewed. Episodes were classified as VTs (n=115) and SVTs (n=105). TCLs, PPIs and PPI-TCL were compared between groups. RESULTS: The cycle length of VTs was shorter than SVTs (320.6±30.3 vs 366.5±40 ms, p=0.001). PPI and PPI-TCL of VTs were shorter than SVTs (504.7±128.3 vs 689.2±121.8 ms, p=0.001, 184±103 vs 322.6±106.6 ms, p=0.001; respectively). ROC curve analysis demonstrated a 525 ms cut-off value for PPI has 89% sensitivity and 57.4% specificity to predict inappropriate ICD therapies due to SVTs (AUC:0.852). Similarly, A PPI-TCL <195 ms favored VT as a diagnosis rather than SVT with a 90% sensitivity, and 51% specificity (AUC:0.838). CONCLUSION: Analyzing of PPI during overdrive pacing from RV apex may discriminate supraventricular from ventricular tachycardia. This criterion may have a potential role in implantable devices that use a single ventricular lead.
Authors: Arthur J Moss; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Helmut Klein; David J Wilber; David S Cannom; James P Daubert; Steven L Higgins; Mary W Brown; Mark L Andrews Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gust H Bardy; Kerry L Lee; Daniel B Mark; Jeanne E Poole; Douglas L Packer; Robin Boineau; Michael Domanski; Charles Troutman; Jill Anderson; George Johnson; Steven E McNulty; Nancy Clapp-Channing; Linda D Davidson-Ray; Elizabeth S Fraulo; Daniel P Fishbein; Richard M Luceri; John H Ip Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J M de Bakker; F J van Capelle; M J Janse; A A Wilde; R Coronel; A E Becker; K P Dingemans; N M van Hemel; R N Hauer Journal: Circulation Date: 1988-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michael O Sweeney; Mark S Wathen; Kent Volosin; Ismaile Abdalla; Paul J DeGroot; Mary F Otterness; Alice J Stark Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-05-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: C D Swerdlow; T Ahern; P S Chen; C Hwang; E Gang; W Mandel; R M Kass; C T Peter Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1994-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Pamela N Peterson; Paul D Varosy; Paul A Heidenreich; Yongfei Wang; Thomas A Dewland; Jeptha P Curtis; Alan S Go; Robert T Greenlee; David J Magid; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Frederick A Masoudi Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 56.272