Key result
Far-field SVC electrograms were observed in 38% of patients after PV isolation, with significantly higher amplitude and major deflection slope compared to far-field left atrial electrograms (p<.001).
Why the study?
Far-field electrograms from the superior vena cava can appear in the right superior pulmonary vein after pulmonary vein isolation, but their characteristics and anatomical correlates were not well defined.
What are the characteristics and anatomical correlates of far-field SVC electrograms in the right superior pulmonary vein after pulmonary vein isolation?
Observational (n=92)
What are the characteristics and anatomical correlates of far-field SVC electrograms in the right superior pulmonary vein after pulmonary vein isolation?
Far-field SVC electrograms in the right superior pulmonary vein after PV isolation are common (38%) and are associated with anatomical proximity of the RSPV and SVC on CT.
Far-field SVC signals may mimic PV reconnection post-isolation; extends anatomical mapping data but leaves clinical impact open.
Background. Far-field electrograms from superior vena cava (SVC) can be present in right superior pulmonary vein (RSPV) after pulmonary vein (PV) isolation. Objectives. To analyze the characteristics of far-field SVC potentials in RSPV after PV isolation and the local anatomy difference between patients with and without the potentials. Methods. Patients undergoing PV isolation were retrospectively reviewed, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) was performed before procedure for observing the anatomical relationship between RSPV and SVC. The prevalence and characteristics of far-field SVC electrograms were described and compared to far-field left atrial potentials at the nearest point along the linear ablation lesion. The anatomical proximity of RSPV and SVC on a 2-dimensional horizontal CT view was compared between patients with and without far-field SVC potentials. Results. Far-field SVC electrograms were observed in 35/92(38%) patients with an amplitude of 0.24 ± 0.11 mV and a major deflection slope of 0.051 ± 0.036 mV, both significantly higher than far-field left atrial electrograms (p < .001). In patients with far-field SVC electrograms, 83% had connected RSPV-SVC, defined as distance between RSPV and SVC endocardium less than 3 mm at the layer of RSPV ostium roof, while in patients without far-field SVC electrograms, 70% had disconnected RSPV-SVC. Conclusions. Far-field SVC electrograms appeared in RSPV had a prevalence higher than previously reported and a sharper major deflection compared to far-field left atrial electrograms. Connected RSPV-SVC on CT was associated with the presence of far-field SVC electrograms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gu et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Pulmonary vein isolation (n=92). Far-field superior vena cava (SVC) electrograms vs. Far-field left atrial electrograms was evaluated on Amplitude of far-field electrograms (mV) (p=<.001). Far-field SVC electrograms were observed in 38% of patients after PV isolation, with significantly higher amplitude and major deflection slope compared to far-field left atrial electrograms (p<.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: