Martínez-Alday J D, Almendral J, Arenal A, Ormaetxe J M, Pastor A, Villacastín J P, Medina O, Peinado R, Delcán J L
Clinical Electrophysiology Laboratory, Hospital General Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Circulation. 1994 Mar;89(3):1060-7. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.89.3.1060.
The differential diagnosis of supraventricular tachycardia with concentric atrial activation usually requires the inducibility of sustained tachycardia and needs a complex and time-consuming electrophysiological evaluation. To develop a simple test to establish if ventriculoatrial conduction uses a posteroseptal accessory pathway or the normal conduction system, we compared the ventriculoatrial intervals during right ventricular pacing from apical and posterobasal sites.
Continuous pacing was performed from an apical and a posterobasal right ventricular site in 34 patients with retrograde conduction over the normal conduction system (group A) and in 22 patients with conduction over a posteroseptal accessory pathway (group B). During apical pacing, ventriculoatrial intervals in group A (176 +/- 40 milliseconds) were not significantly different than those in group B (197 +/- 47 milliseconds, P = NS). During posterobasal pacing, group B patients had significantly shorter ventriculoatrial intervals than group A patients (158 +/- 46 versus 197 +/- 39 milliseconds, P < .01). The difference between the ventriculoatrial interval obtained during apical pacing and that obtained during posterobasal pacing (ventriculoatrial index) discriminated between the two groups without overlapping: It was positive in all group B patients (39 +/- 19; range, +10 to +70 milliseconds) and negative in all except two group A patients (-21 +/- 13; range, -50 to +5 milliseconds; P < .001).
This ventriculoatrial index can identify accurately and in the absence of tachycardia whether concentric retrograde conduction is proceeding over a posteroseptal accessory pathway or over the normal conduction system.
对于伴有同心房激动的室上性心动过速进行鉴别诊断时,通常需要诱发持续性心动过速,且需要复杂且耗时的电生理评估。为了开发一种简单的测试方法来确定室房传导是通过后间隔旁路还是正常传导系统,我们比较了从心尖和后基底部位进行右心室起搏时的室房间期。
对34例通过正常传导系统进行逆向传导的患者(A组)和22例通过后间隔旁路进行传导的患者(B组),分别从心尖和后基底右心室部位进行连续起搏。在心尖部起搏时,A组的室房间期(176±40毫秒)与B组(197±47毫秒,P=无显著差异)无显著差异。在后基底起搏时,B组患者的室房间期明显短于A组患者(158±46对197±39毫秒,P<.01)。心尖部起搏时获得的室房间期与后基底起搏时获得的室房间期之间的差异(室房指数)可区分两组且无重叠:B组所有患者均为阳性(39±19;范围,+10至+70毫秒),A组除2例患者外均为阴性(-21±13;范围,-50至+5毫秒;P<.001)。
该室房指数能够在无心动过速的情况下准确识别同心房逆行传导是通过后间隔旁路还是正常传导系统进行的。