Why the study?
What are the electroanatomic determinants of F-wave morphology in typical counterclockwise atrial flutter?
What are the electroanatomic determinants of F-wave morphology in typical counterclockwise atrial flutter?
The terminal positivity and amplitude of F-waves in typical atrial flutter are determined by the extent of low voltage area and the longitudinal vector of activation in the right atrial free wall.
RA low-voltage extent may shape F-wave morphology in counterclockwise AFL; leaves open whether targeting these regions improves outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Cavotricuspid isthmus-dependent counterclockwise atrial flutter (typical AFL) is characterized by negative saw-tooth morphology flutter wave (F-wave) in the inferior leads, which is classified as type 1 with purely negative F-wave without positive terminal deflection (PTD), type 2 with small PTD, and type 3 with broad PTD. The determinants of these morphological differences remain to be elucidated. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 72 patients (58 males, 65 ± 13 years) with typical AFL, 19 were classified as type 1 and 53 as types 2 and 3. We created an electroanatomic map of the right atrium (RA) during AFL and determined which RA site activation corresponded to which F-wave component by analyzing the activation map. It was revealed that F-wave component from the nadir to terminal deflection point coincided with the cranio-caudal activation of the RA free wall (RAFW) in all types. The bipolar voltage map showed that type 1 had the greater extent of low voltage (<0.5 mV) area (LVA) in RAFW (39 ± 24%) than types 2 and 3 (4 ± 3%) (P < 0.0001), explaining the absence of PTD in type 1. In types 2 and 3, F-wave amplitude determining the PTD magnitude was highly correlated with the longitudinal distance between two points on RAFW corresponding to the nadir and peak of F-wave (r = 0.73, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Terminal positivity and amplitude of F-wave in typical AFL are primarily related to the RAFW activity: negatively by the extent of LVA and positively by the longitudinal vector of activation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sasaki et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: