What are the electrophysiological determinants of double atrial responses to a single ventricular impulse in patients with long RP' tachycardia?
Double atrial responses in long RP' tachycardia require specific electrophysiological conditions, including dual retrograde pathways with short refractory periods and critical conduction delays.
Double atrial responses (DARs) to a single ventricular impulse have been described in patients with long RP' tachycardia. To define the determinants for the occurrence of DARs, 8 cases with long RP' tachycardia were examined. The mechanism of long RP' tachycardia was the orthodromic atrioventricular reciprocating tachycardia (AVRT) involving a slow conducting concealed accessory pathway in 4 cases and uncommon (fast-slow) type of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) in the other 4 cases. Programmed and rapid ventricular pacing was performed during sinus rhythm and also rapid ventricular pacing during tachycardia (i.e., entrainment). The retrograde effective refractory period (ERP) and the retrograde maximal 1:1 conduction rate of the fast and slow conducting pathways were examined. In 1 of the 4 cases with AVRT, DARs were observed during programmed and rapid ventricular pacing, performed during sinus rhythm and also during entrainment. In 1 of the 4 cases with AVNRT, DARs were observed only during entrainment. The determinants of DARs in cases with long RP' tachycardia were: (1) presence of two different retrogradely conducting pathways; (2) short ERP of the retrograde fast and slow conducting pathways and a short minimal pacing cycle length at which 1:1 ventriculoatrial conduction occurs via these pathways; (3) crucial conduction delay in the slow conducting pathway; and (4) preexisting antegrade unidirectional block in the slow conducting pathway or the antegrade block in the slow conducting pathway produced by collision with a previous retrograde impulse during entrainment.
Yamabe et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: