BACKGROUND The safety and efficacy of selective fast versus slow pathway ablation using radiofrequency energy and a transcatheter technique in patients with atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) were evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS Forty-nine consecutive patients with symptomatic AVNRT were included. There were 37 women and 12 men (mean age, 43 +/- 20 years). The first 16 patients underwent a fast pathway ablation with radiofrequency current applied in the anterior/superior aspect of the tricuspid annulus. The remaining 33 patients initially had their slow pathway targeted at the posterior/inferior aspect of the right interatrial septum. The fast pathway was successfully ablated in the initial 16 patients and in three additional patients after an unsuccessful slow pathway ablation. A mean of 10 +/- 8 radiofrequency pulses were delivered; the last (successful) pulse was at a power of 24 +/- 7 W for a duration of 22 +/- 15 seconds. Four of these 19 patients developed complete atrioventricular (AV) block. In the remaining 15 patients, the post-ablation atrio-His intervals prolonged from 89 +/- 30 to 138 +/- 43 msec (p less than 0.001), whereas the shortest 1:1 AV conduction and effective refractory period of the AV node remained unchanged. Ten patients lost their ventriculoatrial (VA) conduction, and the other five had a significant prolongation of the shortest cycle length of 1:1 VA conduction (280 +/- 35 versus 468 +/- 30 msec, p less than 0.0001). Slow pathway ablation was attempted initially in 33 patients and in another two who developed uncommon AVNRT after successful fast pathway ablation. Of these 35 patients, 32 had no AVNRT inducible after 6 +/- 4 radiofrequency pulses with the last (successful) pulse given at a power of 36 +/- 12 W for a duration of 35 +/- 15 seconds. After successful slow pathway ablation, the shortest cycle length of 1:1 AV conduction prolonged from 295 +/- 44 to 332 +/- 66 msec (p less than 0.0005), the AV nodal effective refractory period increased from 232 +/- 36 to 281 +/- 61 msec (p less than 0.0001), and the atrio-His interval as well as the shortest cycle length of 1:1 VA conduction remained unchanged. No patients developed AV block. Among the last 33 patients who underwent a slow pathway ablation as the initial attempt and a fast pathway ablation only when the former failed, 32 (97%) had successful AVNRT abolition with intact AV conduction. During a mean follow-up of 6.5 +/- 3.0 months, none of the 49 patients had recurrent tachycardia. Forty patients had repeat electrophysiological studies 4-8 weeks after their successful ablation, and AVNRT could not be induced in 39 patients. CONCLUSIONS These data suggest that both fast and slow pathways can be selectively ablated for control of AVNRT: Slow pathway ablation, however, by obviating the risk of AV block, appears to be safer and should be considered as the first approach.

The incidence of sustained bundle branch reentrant (BBR) tachycardia as a clinical or induced arrhythmia or both continues to be underreported. At our institution, BBR has been the underlying mechanism of sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia in approximately 6% of patients, whereas mechanisms unrelated to BBR were the cause in the rest. Data gathered from 20 consecutive patients showed electrophysiologic characteristics that suggest this possibility. These include induction of sustained monomorphic tachycardia with typical left or right bundle branch block morphology or both and atrioventricular dissociation or ventriculoatrial block. On intracardiac electrograms, all previously published criteria for BBR were fulfilled, and in addition, whenever there was a change in the cycle length of tachycardia, the His to His cycle length variation produced similar changes in ventricular activation during subsequent complexes with no relation to the preceding ventricular activation cycles. Compared with patients with ventricular tachycardia due to mechanisms unrelated to BBR, patients with BBR had frequent combination of nonspecific intraventricular conduction defects and prolonged HV intervals (100% vs. 11%, p <0.001). When this combination was associated with a tachycardia showing a left bundle branch block pattern, BBR accounted for the majority compared with mechanisms unrelated to BBR (73% vs. 27%, p< 0.01). The above finding in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy should raise the suspicion of sustained BBR because dilated cardiomyopathy was observed in 95% of the patients with BBR. Twelve of the 20 patients were treated with antiarrhythmic agents, and the other eight were managed by selective catheter ablation of the right bundle branch with electrical energy. Our data suggest that sustained BBR is not an uncommon mechanism of tachycardia; it can be induced readily in the laboratory and is amenable to catheter ablation by the very nature of its circuit. The clinical and electrophysiologic features outlined in this study should enable one to correctly diagnose this important arrhythmia. (Circulation 1989;79:256-270) M acroreentry within the His-Purkinje system commonly referred to as bundle branch reentry (BBR) is a frequently observed phenomenon in the laboratory.1-3Although scattered cases of sustained BBR tachycardia have been reported, no large series dealing with this phenomenon exists in the literature.4-11 The incidence of BBR as a mechanism of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), therefore, continues to be underreported in the literature, and consequently, there is less awareness of sustained BBR tachycardia as a significant clinical arrhythmia.

Sustained BBR, a form of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia, is a highly malignant arrhythmia usually seen in patients with structural heart disease. Three different types of BBR tachycardia are described. If distinguished from ventricular tachycardia of a myocardial origin, catheter ablation of the right bundle branch can be easily performed and effectively eliminates BBR. During follow-up, congestive heart failure is the most common cause of death in this population.

Accessory pathways showing decremental properties and inserting into the right ventricle have been frequently described as "nodoventricular" or Mahaim pathways. However, conclusive evidence for a nodal origination of such pathways is lacking. The patient in this study had characteristics typical of such a pathway. Antegradely, the pathway showed decremental, nodelike conduction properties. With the aid of right bundle branch recordings, the pathway was demonstrated to insert directly into the right bundle branch. Atrioventricular reciprocating tachycardia could be readily initiated by atrial or ventricular pacing. The QRS morphology was normal during sinus rhythm and demonstrated a left bundle branch block pattern with normal axis during tachycardia. The reentrant circuit involved antegrade conduction over the accessory pathway and retrograde conduction via the bundle branches, His bundle, and the atrioventricular node. More significantly, late atrial stimuli delivered during tachycardia could preexcite the ventricle via the accessory pathway despite their inability to enter the atrioventricular node. Thus, the upper "turn around" of the reentrant circuit involved atrial tissue and the accessory pathway originated directly from the right atrium independent of the atrioventricular node. In view of these new findings and other recent observations during surgical resection of similar pathways, a reassessment of previous descriptions of "nodoventricular" fibers may be necessary. Many of these pathways may actually represent atriofascicular or atrioventricular connections with decremental properties.

No abstract

AV nodal reentry is a common cause of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia, and a precise diagnosis can be made with intracardiac electrophysiological evaluation. Although the arrhythmia responds to a variety of antiarrhythmic agents, curative therapy can now be offered with catheter modification of the AV node using radiofrequency energy. At the time of this writing, it seems that catheter modification of the AV node is rapidly becoming the therapy of initial choice in patients with symptomatic AV nodal reentrant tachycardia requiring treatment.

In patients with neurocardiogenic syncope associated with bradycardia or asystole, drug therapy is often effective in preventing syncope, whereas artificial pacing is not.

No abstract