Why the study?
Does a 24-pole mapping catheter approach improve assessment of cavotricuspid isthmus block in patients undergoing atrial flutter ablation?
Does a 24-pole mapping catheter approach improve assessment of cavotricuspid isthmus block in patients undergoing atrial flutter ablation?
Reversal of the atrial depolarization sequence up to the line of block is a definitive and mandatory criterion for successful atrial flutter ablation.
Supports concordant criteria for CTI block confirmation with 24-pole mapping; leaves open superiority over standard techniques in larger trials.
BACKGROUND: We sought to compare published methods to an alternative approach ascertaining cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) block during atrial flutter ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 39 consecutive patients who underwent an atrial flutter ablation procedure, a 24-pole mapping catheter was positioned so that 2 adjacent dipoles were bracketing the targeted CTI line of block (LOB), with proximal dipoles lateral to the LOB and distal dipoles in the coronary sinus. Two pacing sites were lateral (positions A and B) and 2 were septal (positions C and D) to the LOB, with locations A and D closest to the LOB. A resulting CTI block was accepted when 3 criteria were fulfilled: (1) complete reversal of the right atrial depolarization on the 24-pole catheter when pacing in the coronary sinus, (2) conduction delays from A to D greater than from B to D, and (3) conduction delays from D to A greater than from C to A. A successful CTI block was obtained in all patients. Before CTI block was obtained, a progressive CTI conduction delay was observed in 11 patients (28.2%). During the procedure, the 3 criteria defined above were either all present or all absent. CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes that reversal of the atrial depolarization sequence up to the LOB is a definitive and mandatory criteria of successful atrial flutter ablation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: