Key result
Right atrial appendage pacing in patients with paroxysmal AF demonstrated significantly shorter atrial effective refractory periods compared to distal coronary sinus pacing (201 vs 240 ms, P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does distal coronary sinus pacing demonstrate different electrophysiological vulnerability compared to right atrial appendage pacing in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Observational (n=40)
Does distal coronary sinus pacing demonstrate different electrophysiological vulnerability compared to right atrial appendage pacing in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
The left posterior or posterolateral atrium appears electrophysiologically stable and less vulnerable to AF induction compared to the right atrial appendage in patients with paroxysmal AF.
Distal CS sites may confer lower AF vulnerability in paroxysmal AF; hypothesis-generating and should not yet alter pacing practice.
Repetitive atrial firing (RAF), marked fragmentation of atrial activity (FAA), and interatrial conduction delay (CD) have been shown to be electrophysiological features of the atrium in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Moreover, it has been observed that atrial extrastimuli are more likely to induce AF when delivered from the right atrial appendage (RAA) than from the distal coronary sinus (CSd). We examined the electrophysiological properties of the atrial muscle by CS and RAA stimulation in patients with paroxysmal AF. Patients were divided into two groups: group I, consisting of 18 patients with clinical paroxysmal AF; and group II, consisting of 22 patients with various cardiac arrhythmias in which the substrate does not exist in the atrium. In group I, the following values of electrophysiological parameters of the atrium indicated that AF was more likely to be induced during RAA pacing than CSd pacing: atrial effective refractory period (RAA vs CSd: 201 +/- 28 ms vs 240 +/- 35 ms, P < 0.001), RAF zone (16 +/- 25 ms vs 0 +/- 0 ms, P < 0.03), FAA zone (38 +/- 37 ms vs 5 +/- 19 ms, P < 0.01), maximum interatrial conduction time (144 +/- 19 ms vs 93 +/- 19 ms, P < 0.0001) and CD zone (53 +/- 21 ms vs 9 +/- 18 ms, P < 0.0001). The values of the electrophysiological parameters of the atrium evaluated by CSd pacing in group I patients were not significantly different from those in group II patients. In conclusion, when coronary sinus stimulation is performed, electrophysiological properties of the atrium in patients with AF show a significant decrease in atrial vulnerability compared to stimulation from RAA and also show similar values to those in patients without AF. It might be suggested that the left posterior or posterolateral atrium is electrophysiologically stable even in patients with paroxysmal AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ishimatsu et al. (1999) conducted an observational in Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (n=40). Right atrial appendage (RAA) pacing vs. Distal coronary sinus (CSd) pacing was evaluated on Atrial effective refractory period (p=< 0.001). Right atrial appendage pacing in patients with paroxysmal AF demonstrated significantly shorter atrial effective refractory periods compared to distal coronary sinus pacing (201 vs 240 ms, P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: