Skip Navigation

Europace 1999 1(1):55-62; doi:10.1053/eupc.1998.0010
© 1999 by European Society of Cardiology
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nanthakumar, K.
Right arrow Articles by Darpö, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nanthakumar, K.
Right arrow Articles by Darpö, B.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Assessment of accessory pathway and atrial refractoriness by transoesophageal and intracardiac atrial stimulation

An analysis of methodological agreement

K. Nanthakumar 1, L. Bergfeldt and B. Darpö

Department of Cardiology, Karolinska Hospital Stockholm, Sweden

Aims

Measurement of the refractory properties of asymptomatic overt accessory pathways is performed to assess the risk for significant arrhythmias. We hypothesized that a transoesophageal atrial stimulation (TAS) protocol would accurately predict simultaneously measured invasive intra cardiac stimulation (ICS) of the anterograde effective refractory period of the accessory pathway (AP-ERP)

Methods and Results

Fourteen single pathway Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) syndrome patients underwent TAS during ICS and 24 h prior to it. The AP-ERP was measured using incremental atrial extra stimuli from TAS, the right atrium (RA) and the coronary sinus (CS) using drive trains of 500 and 600 ms. Stimulus latency was measured from intracardiac electrocardiograms. For methodological comparison, Altman–Bland analysis was used to create the limits of agreement (within-patient mean of differences±two standard deviations). There were no or small differences in the AP-ERP, as assessed by TAS, compared to RA and CS. Methodological disagreement between the three sites were common, however, and the limits of agreement ranged from ±30 to±76 ms. The concordance between TAS and RA, with regards to the AP-ERP value of 270 ms, was 63% when measured as S1S2 and was 67% when measured as A1A2. The stimulation site delay was significantly shorter for TAS compared to RA and CS sites. The two TAS procedures performed a day apart, revealed a coefficient of variation of 9% and a coefficient of reproducibility of 63 ms.

Conclusions

Despite adequate reproducibility, TAS fails to predict the AP-ERP by ICS. Differences in stimulus latency is responsible, in part, for the disagreement. In-vasive ICS cannot be replaced by TAS for risk stratifying WPW patients.

Key Words: Transoesophageal atrial stimulation, accessory, pathway refractory period, WolV-Parkinson-White syndrome, electrophysiological study, methodological agreement


Correspondence: Börje Darpö MD, PhD, Department of Cardiology, Karolinska Hospital, Box 110, S-104 01 Stockholm, Sweden.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Eur Heart JHome page
Task Force on Syncope, European Society of Cardiol, M Brignole, P Alboni, D Benditt, L Bergfeldt, J.J Blanc, P.E Bloch Thomsen, J.G van Dijk, A Fitzpatrick, S Hohnloser, et al.
Guidelines on management (diagnosis and treatment) of syncope
Eur. Heart J., August 1, 2001; 22(15): 1256 - 1306.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.