Why the study?
What electrocardiographic and electrophysiological features distinguish bundle branch reentry ventricular tachycardia from supraventricular tachycardia with aberration?
What electrocardiographic and electrophysiological features distinguish bundle branch reentry ventricular tachycardia from supraventricular tachycardia with aberration?
The presence of wide complex tachycardia with QRS morphology identical to sinus rhythm, A-V dissociation, and QRS duration ≥0.16s is highly suggestive of bundle branch reentry ventricular tachycardia.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Case criteria may distinguish BBRVT in wide-complex tachycardia; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the features that distinguish bundle branch reentry (BBR) ventricular tachycardia from a supraventricular tachycardia with aberration on the 12 lead electrocardiogram (ECG). PATIENTS: Three patients in whom premature beats (2 cases) or sustained tachycardia (2 cases) showed a QRS configuration identical to that observed during sinus rhythm. INTERVENTIONS: Programmed electrical stimulation. RESULTS: These arrhythmias were ventricular in origin and caused by a BBR mechanism, as suggested by the following data obtained during electrophysiological study: (a) an H-V interval shorter during tachycardia than during sinus rhythm; (b) A-V dissociation; (c) activation of the right bundle branch before activation of the bundle of His. The ECG of all 3 patients showed right bundle branch block with very prolonged QRS duration (0.16 to 0.20 s). Characteristically, all 3 had prolonged H-V interval during sinus rhythm. All patients had had a previous myocardial infarction and had a dilated left ventricle. CONCLUSION: The presence of (a) wide complex extrasystoles or tachycardia with a QRS morphology identical to that of sinus rhythm; (b) A-V dissociation; and (c) a very prolonged QRS duration (0.16 s or more) is suggestive of ventricular tachycardia caused by bundle branch reentry.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oreto et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: