Why the study?
Does radiofrequency energy application to the AV node modify atrioventricular conduction and refractoriness in a canine model?
Does radiofrequency energy application to the AV node modify atrioventricular conduction and refractoriness in a canine model?
Radiofrequency energy applied to the AV node in a canine model causes chronic modification of conduction without chronic changes in refractoriness, suggesting potential efficacy for preventing AV nodal reentrant tachycardia but not for controlling ventricular response in atrial fibrillation.
May inform selective AV nodal modification in models; leaves open translation to human arrhythmia control.
The electrophysiology of AV nodal modification induced by radiofrequency energy (n = 5) or a sham procedure (n = 5) was studied in ten dogs. The five dogs that received radiofrequency energy had an AH prolongation > 100% from baseline values and this prolongation persisted throughout the 2-month study. The AV nodal functional refractory period was prolonged only acutely. These data indicate a dissociation between the effects on AV nodal conduction and refractoriness that was induced by this procedure. The five sham treated controls showed no acute or chronic electrophysiological changes. In the dogs that received radiofrequency energy, there was fibrosis of the approaches to the AV node and the region of the AV node itself. It is concluded that chronic modification of AV nodal conduction without concomitant changes in refractoriness can be induced by radiofrequency energy delivered in the proximal portion of the AV node. It would be anticipated that this procedure would not decrease the ventricular response to atrial fibrillation or flutter, may be effective in preventing AV nodal reentrant tachycardia by interfering with conduction either in the AV node or perinodal region. Since the AV node itself suffers at least moderate pathological damage, there may be an appreciable incidence of the late development of complete heart block after this procedure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marcus et al. (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: