Key result
A simple pacing maneuver measuring the Δinterval SR-CS effectively differentiated an epicardial connection (71 ms) from a conduction gap (6 ms, p<.0001) during pulmonary vein isolation.
Why the study?
Carinal ablation is required for right-sided PV isolation due to epicardial connections between the right-sided PV carina and RA, requiring a simple pacing maneuver to differentiate an epicardial connection from a residual conduction gap on the antral ablation line.
Does a simple pacing maneuver (Δinterval SR-CS) differentiate an epicardial connection from a residual conduction gap during right-sided pulmonary vein isolation in patients undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation?
Observational (n=133)
Does a simple pacing maneuver (Δinterval SR-CS) differentiate an epicardial connection from a residual conduction gap during right-sided pulmonary vein isolation in patients undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation?
Absolute Event Rate: 71% vs 6%
p-value: p=<.0001
A simple pacing maneuver calculating the difference in intervals during sinus rhythm and coronary sinus pacing can efficiently discriminate an epicardial connection from a conduction gap during pulmonary vein isolation.
Introduction An epicardial connection (EC) between the right‐sided pulmonary venous (PV) carina and right atrium (RA) is one of the mechanisms for which carinal ablation is required for right‐sided PV isolation. The purpose of the study was to devise a simple pacing maneuver to differentiate an EC from a residual conduction gap on the antral ablation line during radiofrequency catheter ablation. Methods and Results This study included 133 consecutive patients. After one round of ablation, electrograms at the posterior antrum outside the ablation line were recorded during sinus rhythm (SR) and coronary sinus (CS) pacing, and intervals between the antral and PV potentials were measured in each rhythm. The Δinterval SR‐CS was calculated as the difference between the interval during SR and that during CS pacing. Presence of an EC was confirmed by observation of a RA posterior wall breakthrough during right‐sided PV pacing, which was then targeted for ablation. Patients with nonachievement of first‐pass isolation ( N = 35) and with PV reconnection during the procedure ( N = 9) were classified into the EC‐group ( N = 20) and gap‐group (N=24), respectively. The prevalence of carina breakthrough during SR was higher in the EC‐group than the gap‐group (18 [95%] vs. 1 [4%] patients, p < .0001). The Δinterval SR‐CS was larger in the EC‐group versus gap‐group (71 [interquartile range, 57–97] vs. 6 [2–9] ms, p < .0001). In all patients with an EC, RA ablation resulted in delay (32 [20–40] ms) ( N = 15) or elimination of PV potentials ( N = 5). Conclusion An EC can be efficiently discriminated from a conduction gap by a simple pacing maneuver.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hasebe et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Right-sided pulmonary vein isolation during radiofrequency catheter ablation (n=133). Pacing maneuver (Δinterval SR-CS) vs. Conduction gap group was evaluated on Δinterval SR-CS (difference between the interval during sinus rhythm and coronary sinus pacing) (p=<.0001). A simple pacing maneuver measuring the Δinterval SR-CS effectively differentiated an epicardial connection (71 ms) from a conduction gap (6 ms, p<.0001) during pulmonary vein isolation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: