INTRODUCTION: The mechanisms of the ventricular response during atrial fibrillation (AF) remain uncertain. The parameters obtained during an electrophysiologic study, including atrial rates during AF, were analyzed to clarify further the determinants of the ventricular rate during AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty patients without manifest preexcitation in whom AF was induced during electrophysiologic study were divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 20 patients (ages 55 +/- 10 years) without a dual AV nodal pathway. Group 2 consisted of 10 patients (ages 53 +/- 13 years) having a dual AV nodal pathway. The correlation coefficient between the mean RR interval during AF (mRR) and the mean intra-atrial potential interval during AF (mff) was positive (0.05 [P < 0.05] in group 1 and 0.37 [P = NS] in group 2). The correlation coefficient of the mRR against the functional refractory periods of the AV node (AVFRP) was 0.73 (P < 0.001) in group 1. The correlation coefficients between mRR and the fast AV nodal pathway functional refractory periods and the slow AV nodal pathway effective refractory periods (SPERP) were 0.58 (P = NS) and 0.7 (P < 0.05) in group 2, respectively. The correlation coefficients between mRR against (mff x AVFRP)1/2 in group 1 and (mff x SPERP)1/2 in group 2 were 0.8 (P < 0.001) and 0.72 (P < 0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical study did not indicate an inverse relation between the atrial and ventricular rates that had been reported by the previous experimental study. The ventricular rate during AF appeared to be quantitatively related to the atrial rate via AV node function. The importance of the slow pathway in determining the ventricular rate during AF was observed.
INTRODUCTION: The mechanisms of the ventricular response during atrial fibrillation (AF) remain uncertain. The parameters obtained during an electrophysiologic study, including atrial rates during AF, were analyzed to clarify further the determinants of the ventricular rate during AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty patients without manifest preexcitation in whom AF was induced during electrophysiologic study were divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 20 patients (ages 55 +/- 10 years) without a dual AV nodal pathway. Group 2 consisted of 10 patients (ages 53 +/- 13 years) having a dual AV nodal pathway. The correlation coefficient between the mean RR interval during AF (mRR) and the mean intra-atrial potential interval during AF (mff) was positive (0.05 [P < 0.05] in group 1 and 0.37 [P = NS] in group 2). The correlation coefficient of the mRR against the functional refractory periods of the AV node (AVFRP) was 0.73 (P < 0.001) in group 1. The correlation coefficients between mRR and the fast AV nodal pathway functional refractory periods and the slow AV nodal pathway effective refractory periods (SPERP) were 0.58 (P = NS) and 0.7 (P < 0.05) in group 2, respectively. The correlation coefficients between mRR against (mff x AVFRP)1/2 in group 1 and (mff x SPERP)1/2 in group 2 were 0.8 (P < 0.001) and 0.72 (P < 0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical study did not indicate an inverse relation between the atrial and ventricular rates that had been reported by the previous experimental study. The ventricular rate during AF appeared to be quantitatively related to the atrial rate via AV node function. The importance of the slow pathway in determining the ventricular rate during AF was observed.