INTRODUCTION: Although the circuit in typical counterclockwise atrial flutter has been clearly delineated, the mechanisms of "atypical atrial flutters" have been less well characterized. The purpose of this study was to investigate the ECG and electrophysiologic (EP) characteristics of atypical atrial flutter. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-three patients with at least one form of atypical atrial flutter underwent EP evaluation with multipolar atrial activation and entrainment mapping. Nineteen patients with clockwise flutter had: (1) stereotypic ECG morphology; (2) same cycle length as counterclockwise flutter; (3) clockwise activation around the tricuspid annulus; (4) recording of discrete split potentials along the length of the crista terminalis, suggesting the presence of conduction block; (5) concealed entrainment from the low right atrial isthmus; (6) successful ablation in this isthmus. Twenty patients with atypical flutter not consistent with a clockwise mechanism ("true atypical flutter") showed: (1) heterogeneous ECG morphology; (2) cycle length shorter than that of clockwise flutter; (3) frequent transitions from and to atrial fibrillation; (4) could be entrained in only six patients and, when accomplished, demonstrated surface fusion when entraining from the low right atrial isthmus. CONCLUSIONS: Atypical flutter falls into two broad categories. Clockwise flutter uses the same circuit with the same endocardial barriers as its counterclockwise counterpart and is best considered a form of typical flutter. True atypical flutter induced in the EP laboratory is a heterogeneous group of arrhythmias that are transitional to atrial fibrillation. Although it may superficially resemble clockwise or counterclockwise flutter based on the 12-lead ECG alone, the distinction can be readily made from a combined evaluation including activation and entrainment mapping.
INTRODUCTION: Although the circuit in typical counterclockwise atrial flutter has been clearly delineated, the mechanisms of "atypical atrial flutters" have been less well characterized. The purpose of this study was to investigate the ECG and electrophysiologic (EP) characteristics of atypical atrial flutter. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-three patients with at least one form of atypical atrial flutter underwent EP evaluation with multipolar atrial activation and entrainment mapping. Nineteen patients with clockwise flutter had: (1) stereotypic ECG morphology; (2) same cycle length as counterclockwise flutter; (3) clockwise activation around the tricuspid annulus; (4) recording of discrete split potentials along the length of the crista terminalis, suggesting the presence of conduction block; (5) concealed entrainment from the low right atrial isthmus; (6) successful ablation in this isthmus. Twenty patients with atypical flutter not consistent with a clockwise mechanism ("true atypical flutter") showed: (1) heterogeneous ECG morphology; (2) cycle length shorter than that of clockwise flutter; (3) frequent transitions from and to atrial fibrillation; (4) could be entrained in only six patients and, when accomplished, demonstrated surface fusion when entraining from the low right atrial isthmus. CONCLUSIONS:Atypical flutter falls into two broad categories. Clockwise flutter uses the same circuit with the same endocardial barriers as its counterclockwise counterpart and is best considered a form of typical flutter. True atypical flutter induced in the EP laboratory is a heterogeneous group of arrhythmias that are transitional to atrial fibrillation. Although it may superficially resemble clockwise or counterclockwise flutter based on the 12-lead ECG alone, the distinction can be readily made from a combined evaluation including activation and entrainment mapping.
Authors: David E Krummen; Mitul Patel; Hong Nguyen; Gordon Ho; Dhruv S Kazi; Paul Clopton; Marian C Holland; Scott L Greenberg; Gregory K Feld; Mitchell N Faddis; Sanjiv M Narayan Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2010-11
Authors: Kurt S Hoffmayer; Yanfei Yang; Stephen Joseph; James M McCabe; Prashant Bhave; Jonathan Hsu; Ramford K Ng; Byron K Lee; Nitish Badhwar; Randall J Lee; Zian H Tseng; Jeffrey E Olgin; Sanjiv M Narayan; Gregory M Marcus; Melvin M Scheinman Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: L P Lai; J L Lin; L J Lin; W J Chen; Y L Ho; Y Z Tseng; C H Chen; Y T Lee; W P Lien; S K Huang Journal: Heart Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Claudio Pedrinazzi; Ornella Durin; Giosuè Mascioli; Antonio Curnis; Riccardo Raddino; Giuseppe Inama; Livio Dei Cas Journal: Heart Int Date: 2006-12-15