Frederic Van Heuverswyn

Lessons from dissociated pulmonary vein potentials: entry block implies exit block

Aims Prior reports using pacing manoeuvres, demonstrated an up to 42% prevalence of residual pulmonary vein to left atrium (PV–LA) exit conduction after apparent LA–PV entry block. We aimed to determine in a two-centre study the prevalence of residual PV–LA exit conduction in the presence of unambiguously proven entry block and without pacing manoeuvres. Methods and results Of 378 patients, 132 (35%) exhibited spontaneous pulmonary vein (PV) potentials following circumferential PV isolation guided by three-dimensional mapping and a circular mapping catheter. Pulmonary vein automaticity was regarded as unambiguous proof of LA–PV entry block. We determined the prevalence of spontaneous exit conduction of the spontaneous PV potentials toward the LA. Pulmonary vein automaticity was observed in 171 PVs: 61 right superior PV, 33 right inferior PV, 47 left superior PV, and 30 left inferior PV. Cycle length of the PV automaticity was >1000 ms in all cases. Spontaneous PV–LA exit conduction was observed in one of 171 PVs (0.6%). In a subset of 69 PVs, pacing from within the PV invariably confirmed PVLA exit block. Conclusion Unidirectional block at the LA–PV junction is unusual (0.6%). This observation is supportive of LA–PV entry block as a sufficient electrophysiological endpoint for PV isolation.

Variability in interpretation of the electrocardiogram in young athletes: an unrecognized obstacle for electrocardiogram-based screening protocols.

AIMS To assess in young athletes (i) the variability in the percentage of abnormal electrocardiograms (ECGs) using different criteria and (ii) the variability in ECG interpretation among cardiologists and sport physicians. METHODS AND RESULTS Electrocardiograms of 138 athletes were categorized by seven cardiologists according to the original European Society of Cardiology (ESC) criteria by Corrado (C), subsequently modified by Uberoi (U), Marek (M), and the Seattle criteria (S); seven sports physicians only used S criteria. The percentage of abnormal ECGs for each physician was calculated and the percentage of complete agreement was assessed. For cardiologists, the median percentage of abnormal ECGs was 14% [interquartile range (IQR) 12.5-20%] for C, 11% (IQR 9.5-12.5%) for U [not significant (NS) compared with C], 11% (IQR 10-13%) for M (NS compared with C), and 7% (IQR 5-8%) for S (P < 0.005 compared with C); complete agreement in interpretation was 64.5% for C, 76% for U (P < 0.05 compared with C), 74% for M (NS compared with C), and 84% for S (P < 0.0005 compared with C). Sport physicians classified a median of 7% (IQR 7-11%) of ECGs as abnormal by S (P = NS compared with cardiologists using S); complete agreement was 72% (P < 0.05 compared with cardiologists using S). CONCLUSION Seattle criteria reduced the number of abnormal ECGs in athletes and increased agreement in classification. However, variability in ECG interpretation by cardiologists and sport physicians remains high and is a limitation for ECG-based screening programs.

In Heart Failure Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block Single Lead MultiSpot Left Ventricular Pacing Does Not Improve Acute Hemodynamic Response To Conventional Biventricular Pacing. A Multicenter Prospective, Interventional, Non-Randomized Study

Introduction Recent efforts to increase CRT response by multiSPOT pacing (MSP) from multiple bipols on the same left ventricular lead are still inconclusive. Aim The Left Ventricular (LV) MultiSPOTpacing for CRT (iSPOT) study compared the acute hemodynamic response of MSP pacing by using 3 electrodes on a quadripolar lead compared with conventional biventricular pacing (BiV). Methods Patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) underwent an acute hemodynamic study to determine the %change in LV+dP/dtmax from baseline atrial pacing compared to the following configurations: BiV pacing with the LV lead in a one of lateral veins, while pacing from the distal, mid, or proximal electrode and all 3 electrodes together (i.e. MSP). All measurements were repeated 4 times at 5 different atrioventricular delays. We also measured QRS-width and individual Q-LV durations. Results Protocol was completed in 24 patients, all with LBBB (QRS width 171±20 ms) and 58% ischemic aetiology. The percentage change in LV+dP/dtmax for MSP pacing was 31.0±3.3% (Mean±SE), which was not significantly superior to any BiV pacing configuration: 28.9±3.2% (LV-distal), 28.3±2.7% (LV-mid), and 29.5±3.0% (LV-prox), respectively. Correlation between LV+dP/dtmax and either QRS-width or Q-LV ratio was poor. Conclusions In patients with LBBB MultiSPOT LV pacing demonstrated comparable improvement in contractility to best conventional BiV pacing. Optimization of atrioventricular delay is important for the best performance for both BiV and MultiSPOT pacing configurations. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NTC01883141

Dissimilar ventricular rhythms: implications for ICD therapy.

Sensing of left ventricular (LV) activity in some devices used for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was designed primarily to prevent the delivery of an LV stimulus into the LV vulnerable period. Such a sensing function of the LV channel is not universally available in contemporary CRT devices. Recordings of LV electrograms may provide special diagnostic data unavailable solely from the standard right ventricular electrogram and corresponding marker channel. We used the LV sensing function of Biotronik CRT defibrillators to find 3 cases of dissimilar ventricular rhythms or tachyarrhythmias. Such arrhythmias are potentially important because concomitant slower right ventricular activity may prevent or delay implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy for a life-threatening situation involving a faster and more serious LV tachyarrhythmia. Dissimilar ventricular rhythms may not be rare and may account for cases of unexplained sudden death with a normally functioning implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and no recorded terminal arrhythmia.

Novel Algorithmic Methods in Mapping of Atrial and Ventricular Tachycardia

Background—Conventional methods to assess local activation time (LAT) detect the peak of the bipolar electrogram (B-LATPeak) or the maximal negative slope of the unipolar electrogram (U-LATSlope). We evaluated 3 novel methods to assess LAT: onset (B-LATOnset) and center of mass (B-LATCoM) of bipolar electrogram, and maximal negative slope of unipolar electrogram within a predefined bipolar window (U-LATSlope-hybrid). Methods and Results—In 1753 atrial tachycardia and 1426 ventricular tachycardia recordings, the performance of the methods in detecting LAT was evaluated pair-wise (eg, B-LATPeak versus B-LATOnset). For each comparison, histogram analysis of the differences in LAT values was performed. Variation in differences (P95-P5) in low quality (LQ) was compared with high-quality electrograms. In a separate data set (12 atrial tachycardia and 10 ventricular tachycardia), we evaluated for each method the accuracy in algorithmic activation mapping. Both in atrial tachycardia and ventricular tachycardia, the variation in difference between the conventional and novel methods was larger in LQ electrograms. In contrast, variation in difference between the novel methods was comparable in LQ and high-quality electrograms. Except for LATSlope-hybrid, all methods showed decreased mapping accuracy with increasing percentage of LQ electrograms. U-LATSlope-hybrid accurately mapped activation in 16 out of 22 maps (versus B-LATCoM, 14; B-LATPeak, 14; B-LATOnset, 13; U-LATSlope, 4). Conclusions—In LQ atrial and ventricular electrograms, the novel LAT methods (B-LATOnset, B-LATCoM, and U-LATSlope-hybrid) show less variation than the conventional methods. The U-LATSlope-hybrid, a hybrid method that accurately detects the maximal negative unipolar slope, is associated with the highest accuracy in algorithmic mapping of atrial tachycardia/ventricular tachycardia.

Undersensing by an ICD due to alternans of the ventricular electrogram

Alternans of the ventricular electrogram (VEGM) during ventricular tachycardia (VT) is a rare cause of ventricular undersensing by an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD). This report describes a patient with a St. Jude ICD who exhibited sustained monomorphic VT associated with surface QRS alternans, alternating cycle lengths, alternans of the VEGM causing intermittent undersensing of the smaller component, and intermittent 2:1 counting of ventricular intervals during 1:1 sensing in response to the ICD detection algorithm. VEGM undersensing was corrected noninvasively simply by programming the threshold start from 62.5% to 50% which increased the sensitivity based on the amplitude of the VEGM. This maneuver did not affect the satisfactory and stable defibrillation threshold.

Pacemaker repetitive nonreentrant ventriculoatrial synchrony. Why did automatic mode switching occur

Repetitive nonreentrant ventriculoatrial synchrony during dual-chamber pacing is characterized by long intervals alternating with short intervals. This arrangement activated automatic mode switching in a St Jude dual-chamber pacemaker in which the algorithm requires an atrial sensed event for automatic mode switching initiation. Automatic mode switching activation by an atrial sensed event (retrograde P wave) was puzzling because the programmed postventricular atrial period was longer than the retrograde ventriculoatrial conduction time. The explanation is presented in the form of questions and answers to facilitate the understanding of pacemaker function and complex timing cycles.

Clinical assessment and comparison of annotation algorithms in high-density mapping of regular atrial tachycardias

High‐density automated mapping of regular atrial tachycardias (ATs) requires accurate assessment of local activation times (LATs).

Bipolar electrograms characteristics at the left atrial-pulmonary vein junction: Toward a new algorithm for automated verification of pulmonary vein isolation.

BACKGROUND Verification of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is challenging because of the coexistence of PV and far-field potentials in bipolar electrograms recorded at the left atrial-pulmonary vein (LA-PV) junction. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to characterize algorithmically LA-PV potentials before and after PVI and to develop an algorithm to differentiate nonisolated from isolated PVs. METHODS In 61 patients, we characterized-by type (morphology) and parameters-1440 electrograms recorded during sinus rhythm before and after PVI. Based on vein-dependent prevalence of a given type before and after PVI (first step) and based on vein- and type-dependent cutoff values in parameters specific for recordings before and after PVI (second step), we developed a 2-step algorithm to differentiate nonisolated from isolated PVs. We prospectively validated this algorithm in another dataset of 20 patients. RESULTS Characteristics before and after PVI were as follows: low voltage (10% ± 7% vs 36% ± 15%), monophasic (13% ± 4% vs 27% ± 9%), biphasic (18% ± 4% vs 21% ± 9%), triphasic (22% ± 5% vs 11% ± 13%), multiphasic (26% ± 7% vs 3% ± 3%), double potentials (11% ± 5% vs 2% ± 1%), peak-to-peak amplitude (0.97 ± 0.21 mV vs 0.35 ± 0.23 mV), maximal slope (0.179 ± 0.033 mV/ms vs 0.071 ± 0.029 mV/ms), minimal slope (0.030 ± 0.003 mV/ms vs 0.024 ± 0.002 mV/ms), and sharpest peak (1.82° ± 0.26° vs 3.45° ± 0.85°, P < .01 for all except biphasic). Overall sensitivity and specificity of the 2-step algorithm was 100% and 87%, respectively. CONCLUSION We algorithmically characterized LA-PV potentials before and after PVI in a large dataset (library of types and parameters). This library enabled us to develop an accurate 2-step algorithm to automatically differentiate nonisolated from isolated PVs. The 2-step algorithm is objective and reliable for assessing PV isolation without the need for pacing maneuvers.

A “Shocking” Case Rectified

A 29-year-old man received a Lumax 340 VRT XL implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) connected to a Linox S 65 single-coil true bipolar shock lead (BIOTRONIK SE &CO, KG, Berlin, Germany) in 2008 after successful resuscitation from sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT). An underlying Brugada syndrome (BS) was diagnosed. At implant R-wave sensing was 12.5 mV. Tachycardia detection was programmed as follows: VT monitoring zone between 180 beats/min and 240 beats/min and ventricular fibrillation (VF) zone for rates above 240 beats/min. VF induction was performed and showed correct sensing at least sensitivity. The patient remained asymptomatic until November 2012 when he experienced an ICD shock during strenuous exercise (Fig. 1). Is this an appropriate or inappropriate shock and what is the cause of the shock?