Why the study?
Does time domain analysis of intraventricular electrograms accurately differentiate paroxysmal bundle branch block of supraventricular origin from ventricular tachycardia?
Does time domain analysis of intraventricular electrograms accurately differentiate paroxysmal bundle branch block of supraventricular origin from ventricular tachycardia?
Time domain methods for ventricular electrogram analysis (CWA, AD, ADA) cannot reliably distinguish paroxysmal bundle branch block from ventricular tachycardia, potentially leading to misdiagnosis by implantable antitachycardia devices.
Time-domain electrogram analysis cannot reliably differentiate BBB from VT; leaves open development of improved device discrimination algorithms.
Current implantable antitachycardia devices use several methods for differentiating sinus rhythm (SR) from supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) or ventricular tachycardia (VT). These methods include sustained high rate, the rate of onset, changes in cycle length, and sudden onset. Additional methods for detecting VT include techniques based upon ventricular electrogram morphology. The morphological approach is based on the assumption that the direction of cardiac activation, as sensed by a bipolar electrode in the ventricle, is different when the patient is in SR as compared to VT. Whether paroxysmal bundle branch block of supraventricular origin (BBB) can be differentiated from VT has not been determined. In this study, we compared the morphology of the ventricular electrogram during sinus rhythm with a normal QRS (SRNIQRS) or SVT with a normal QRS (SVTNIQRS) with the morphologies of BBB and VT in 30 patients undergoing cardiac electrophysiology studies. Changes in ventricular electrogram morphology were determined using three previously proposed time domain methods for VT detection: Correlation Waveform Analysis (CWA), Area of Difference (AD), and Amplitude Distribution Analysis (ADA). CWA, AD, and ADA distinguished VT from SRNIQRS or SVTNIQRS in 16/17 (94%), 14/17 (82%), and 12/17 (71%) patients, and BBB from SRNIQRS or SVTNIQRS in 15/15 (100%), 13/15 (87%), and 6/15 (40%) patients, respectively. However, the ranges of values during BBB using these methods overlapped with ranges of values during VT in all cases for CWA, AD, and ADA. Hence, BBB may be a source of misdiagnosis in detecting VT when these time domain methods are used for ventricular electrogram analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Throne et al. (1990) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: