Why the study?
Mapping and ablation of localized reentry atrial tachycardia can be challenging, particularly in cases with varying cycle length.
Does overdrive pacing mapping improve mapping success compared to conventional activation mapping in patients with scar-associated localized atrial tachycardia?
Does overdrive pacing mapping improve mapping success compared to conventional activation mapping in patients with scar-associated localized atrial tachycardia?
Overdrive pacing mapping is a highly effective alternative to conventional activation mapping for localized atrial tachycardias, particularly those with varying cycle lengths or that are poorly sustained.
BACKGROUND: Mapping and ablation of localized reentry atrial tachycardia (AT) can be challenging, especially in those with varying cycle length (CL). OBJECTIVE: We attempted to use the traditional maneuver of overdrive pacing to facilitate AT mapping. METHODS: Data were collected from 12 patients with localized ATs. All patients had prior cardiac surgery or prior atrial fibrillation ablation. Overdrive pacing mapping (ODPM) was performed to find independent local activity (ILA) and compared with conventional activation mapping (CAM) during ongoing AT to determine its accuracy and efficacy. Patients with macro-reentry AT around the tricuspid or mitral annulus were excluded. RESULTS: Twelve patients with 14 localized ATs were included. All 14 ATs including 4 (29%) with varying CL successfully completed ODPM and had the ILA, although two ATs terminated during ODP and required repeated mapping. Radiofrequency ablation focused on critical sites with ILA was successful in all 12 patients. Using CAM, however, 6 of 14 ATs (43%) mapping attempts were aborted due to AT termination (2 ATs) or varying CL (4 ATs), and only 5 of 8 (63%) located "critical sites" were ultimately confirmed by entrainment and ablation results. After 25 ± 9 months of follow-up, no patient had AT recurrence. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary results demonstrated that ODPM is superior to CAM in ATs that were poorly sustained or with varying CL and is a useful supplement to CAM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiang et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: