Key result
Catheter ablation of right anteroseptal accessory pathways via the inferior vena cava approach showed a similar success rate compared to the superior vena cava approach (76.6% vs 73.3%, p=0.63).
Why the study?
The study aimed to describe the electrophysiologic characteristics of para-hisian accessory pathways, the outcomes of different ablation approaches, and ablation safety across different anatomical sites.
Does the anatomical site and approach of catheter ablation for para-hisian accessory pathways affect the success rate and risk of atrioventricular conduction injury?
Observational (n=120)
No
Does the anatomical site and approach of catheter ablation for para-hisian accessory pathways affect the success rate and risk of atrioventricular conduction injury?
Absolute Event Rate: 76.6% vs 73.3%
p-value: p=0.63
Ablation of para-hisian accessory pathways via IVC or SVC approaches yields comparable success, but the risk of AV conduction injury is highly dependent on the specific anatomical site, being highest at the true para-hisian site.
May support approach flexibility for right anteroseptal pathways; leaves open site-specific AV injury risks in larger studies.
Background This study describes the electrophysiologic characteristics of the para-hisian accessory pathway (AP), the outcome of different ablation approaches, and ablation safety at different sites. Method A total of 120 patients diagnosed as para-hisian AP were included in this study. The electrophysiologic characteristics and outcomes at different ablation sites were analyzed. Results In total, 107 APs and 13 APs were diagnosed as right anteroseptal (RAS) and right midseptal (RMS), respectively. The significant ECG difference between RAS and RMS was lead III, which mainly manifested as positive and negative delta waves, respectively. Catheter trauma to AP was recorded in 21 of 120 (17.5%) patients. The recurrence rate of direct ablation at the “bumped” sites was higher than the conventional ablation method (37.5 vs. 14.1 %, p = 0.036). For RAS APs, there was no significant difference in the success rate between the inferior vena cava (IVC) and superior vena cava (SVC) approaches (76.6 vs. 73.3%, p = 0.63). The RAS was separated into three regions: (1) Site 1: superior part above the real “His” recorded site with far-field “His” potential; (2) Site 2 (true para-hisian): the site with near-field “His” potential; and (3) Site 3: inferior part below the biggest real “His” with far-field “His” potential. Mid-septal was defined as an area that is bounded anteriorly by His recording location and posteriorly by the roof of coronary sinus (CS) ostium. The incidence of atrioventricular (AV) conduction injury at different sites was as follows: 3 of 6 (50%) at Site 2, 4 of 13 (30.8%) at RMS, 7 of 34 (20.6%) at Site 3, and 3 of 46 (6.5%) at Site 1. Even if ablation was performed at the atrial side of the para-hisian region, the right bundle branch block (RBBB) was caused in 6 patients (5%). Conclusion Ablation via IVC or SVC was comparative for para-hisian APs, but not for the noncoronary cusp (NCC) approach. The AV conduction injury risk ranks as follows: Site 2 > RMS > Site 3 > Site 1. RBBB could be caused while ablating at the atrial side, which could further demonstrate the His bundle longitudinal dissociation theory.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Para-hisian accessory pathway (n=120). Inferior vena cava (IVC) ablation approach vs. Superior vena cava (SVC) ablation approach was evaluated on Success rate for right anteroseptal accessory pathways (p=0.63). Catheter ablation of right anteroseptal accessory pathways via the inferior vena cava approach showed a similar success rate compared to the superior vena cava approach (76.6% vs 73.3%, p=0.63).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: