Key result
Para-Hisian pacing fails to confirm accessory pathways in ~22% of cases due to absent ventricular electrograms.
Why the study?
Para-Hisian pacing helps differentiate retrograde conduction over an accessory pathway from conduction over the AV node, but potential limitations regarding coronary sinus V-A interval measurement needed examination.
Does Para-Hisian pacing reliably differentiate retrograde conduction over a septal accessory pathway from AV nodal conduction?
Observational (n=9)
Does Para-Hisian pacing reliably differentiate retrograde conduction over a septal accessory pathway from AV nodal conduction?
Para-Hisian pacing has limitations in discriminating retrograde septal accessory pathways from AV nodal conduction when proximal coronary sinus recordings lack visible ventricular electrograms.
PHP may preclude accessory pathway confirmation when CS ventricular signals are absent; leaves open its reliability for differentiating retrograde conduction.
BACKGROUND: Para-Hisian pacing (PHP) helps differentiate retrograde conduction over an accessory pathway (AP) from retrograde conduction over the atrioventricular (AV) node. This study examined a potential limitation of this technique, focusing on the measurement of the ventriculoatrial (V-A) interval from the coronary sinus (CS) during PHP. METHODS: Our subjects were 9 patients undergoing electrophysiological studies before successful catheter ablation of a posteroseptal AP. During PHP, retrograde conduction occurred over an AP when the pacing stimulus to atrium (S-A) interval recorded near the AP remained unchanged whether the His bundle (HB) was captured or not (pattern 1), or when a loss of HB capture was associated with an increase in the S-A interval and no change in the V-A interval near the AP (pattern 2). RESULTS: Patterns 1 and 2 were observed in 5 (56%) and 2 (22%) patients, respectively. However, in the remaining 2 patients (22%), loss of HB capture during PHP was associated with an increase in the S-A interval (as in pattern 2), whereas the V-A interval near the AP could not be measured because no ventricular electrogram was visible on the CS recording (pattern 3); therefore, the presence of AP could not be confirmed by PHP. In patterns 2 and 3, the atrial activation sequence remained unchanged whether the HB was captured or not. CONCLUSIONS: PHP may not be able to discriminate between a retrograde septal AP and AV nodal conduction in patients whose proximal CS recording shows no visible ventricular electrogram.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iijima et al. (2014) conducted an observational in Posteroseptal accessory pathway (n=9). Para-Hisian pacing was evaluated on Patterns of retrograde conduction during para-Hisian pacing. Para-Hisian pacing failed to confirm the presence of an accessory pathway in 22% (2 of 9) of patients because no ventricular electrogram was visible on the proximal coronary sinus recording.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: