(Circulation. 2001;103:1102.)
© 2001 American Heart Association, Inc.
Clinical Investigation and Reports |
Bundle-Branch Reentry and the Postpacing Interval After Entrainment by Right Ventricular Apex Stimulation
A New Approach to Elucidate the Mechanism of Wide-QRS-Complex Tachycardia With Atrioventricular Dissociation
From the Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Unit, UMQ de Cardiología, Hospital La Paz, Universidad Autónoma, Madrid, Spain.
Correspondence to Dr Jose L. Merino, Laboratorio Electrofisiología Cardíaca, Hospital General La Paz, P. Castellana 261, 28046 Madrid, Spain. E-mail jlmerino{at}jet.es
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background—Diagnosis of bundle-branch reentry ventricular tachycardia (BBR-VT) by the standard approach is challenging, and this may lead to nonrecognition of this tachycardia mechanism. Because the postpacing interval (PPI) after entrainment has been correlated with the distance from the pacing site to the reentrant circuit, BBR-VT entrainment by pacing from the right ventricular apex (RVA) should result in a PPI similar to the tachycardia cycle length (TCL). This factor may differentiate BBR-VT from other mechanisms of wide-QRS-complex tachycardia with AV dissociation, such as myocardial reentrant VT (MR-VT) or AV nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT), in which the circuit is usually located away from the RVA.
Methods and Results—Transient entrainment by RVA pacing was attempted in 18 consecutive BBR-VTs and finally achieved in 13. Results were compared with those found in 59 consecutive MR-VTs and 50 consecutive AVNRTs. The mean PPI-TCL difference was significantly (P<0.0001) shorter in the BBR-VT group (9±11 ms) than in the MR-VT (109±48 ms) and the AVNRT (150±29 ms) groups. No BBR-VT showed a PPI-TCL >30 ms (range -12 to 24 ms). Except for 2 MR-VTs, no MR-VT (range 21 to 211 ms) or AVNRT (range 100 to 215 ms) showed a PPI-TCL <30 ms.
Conclusions—A PPI-TCL >30 ms, after entrainment by RVA stimulation, makes BBR-VT unlikely. Conversely, a PPI-TCL <30 ms is suggestive of BBR-VT but should lead to further investigation by use of conventional criteria.
Key Words: ablation • bundle-branch block • electrophysiology • entrainment • tachycardia
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
In contrast to other ventricular tachycardia (VT) mechanisms, bundle-branch reentry (BBR) is easily and effectively treated by radiofrequency ablation.1 2 Recognition or exclusion of BBR, however, can be challenging and time-consuming.3 4 5 6 Criteria based on the recording of the His bundle electrogram have several limitations, such as failure to record the His bundle electrogram during tachycardia because of catheter displacement or severe His-Purkinje disease,3 4 5 6 7 and BBR nonrecognition when oscillations in the VV interval precede those of the HH interval because of conduction variations in the antegrade, rather than the retrograde, conducting bundle branch.6 8 More recently, demonstration of both orthodromic concealed fusion (concealed fusion with tachycardia QRS-complex morphology preservation) and manifest fusion during entrainment by atrial and ventricular pacing, respectively, has been proposed as an alternative approach to BBR diagnosis.6 This approach, however, demands that the patient is not in atrial fibrillation and usually requires the infusion of atropine, isoproterenol, or both to avoid AV block at the atrial pacing cycle length (CL). Hence, suspicion or exclusion of BBR by a simple and time-saving method without requiring His bundle electrogram recording or drug infusion during tachycardia is warranted.
The first postpacing interval (PPI) after tachycardia
entrainment has been correlated with the distance from the pacing site
to the reentrant
circuit.9 10 We
postulated
(Figure 1
) that BBR-VT entrainment pacing from the right
ventricular apex (RVA) should result in a PPI similar to the
tachycardia CL (TCL) because the right bundle-branch distal insertion
is in this anatomic area. This approach may differentiate BBR from
other mechanisms of wide-QRS-complex tachycardia with AV
dissociation,3 11
such as ventricular myocardial reentry (MR) or AV nodal reentry (AVNR),
where the circuit is usually away from the
RVA.
|
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Patients
Fourteen consecutive patients with 18 inducible BBR-VTs were included in the study. Results in this group of patients were compared with those found in a group of 48 consecutive patients (60±14 years old, 41 male) with 59 inducible and sustained MR-VTs and with those found in a group of 50 consecutive patients (50±17 years old, 11 male) with inducible and sustained common AVNR tachycardia (AVNRT). In this latter group, 12 AVNRTs presented bundle-branch block (BBB)—11 right BBB (RBBB) and 1 left BBB (LBBB)—when entrainment was performed. Fifty-three MR-VTs and 20 AVNRTs were not included in the study because they were poorly tolerated and terminated without a study recording or pacing protocol being attempted or achieved, because they had CL oscillations >20 ms, or because they were terminated at the longest entrainment pacing CL. Different tachycardia reentrant mechanisms (BBR-VT and MR-VT) were inducible in only 2 patients (BBR-VT group patients 11 and 13) and were included in the corresponding tachycardia groups.
BBR-VT patients’ characteristics are shown in the
Table.
Forty of the 48 patients with MR-VT had apparent structural heart
disease: 25 prior myocardial infarction, 6 idiopathic dilated
cardiomyopathy, 5 right ventricular dysplasia, 3 valvular heart
disease, and 1 both prior myocardial infarction and valvular disease.
Eleven patients with AVNRT had apparent heart disease: 5 hypertension
with left ventricular hypertrophy, 3 ischemic heart disease, 2
congenital heart disease, and 1 hypertrophic
cardiomyopathy.
|
No patient was included in the study if antiarrhythmic drugs
had not been discontinued for 
5 half-lives at electrophysiological
testing, with the exception of 4 patients with MR-VT and BBR-VT patient
14, who were on digoxin or ß-blockers, and 3 MR-VT patients, who had
amiodarone withdrawn >2 but <8 weeks before electrophysiological
evaluation.
Electrophysiological Study
Cardiac invasive electrophysiological studies were
performed in accordance with institutional guidelines after informed
consent. Two or more tetrapolar catheters with 5-mm interelectrode
spacing were introduced percutaneously through the right, left, or both
femoral veins and placed in the His bundle area and right ventricle.
Additional electrode catheters were placed in the high right atrium in
some patients with no atrial fibrillation and into the coronary sinus
in some patients with AVNRT. Three or 4 surface ECG traces and 2 to 7
bipolar intracardiac recordings, filtered between 30 and 500 Hz, were
simultaneously displayed on a digital multichannel oscilloscope
(LabSystem, Bard Electrophysiology or Midas, PPG Biomedical Systems).
All 12 ECG traces and intracardiac electrograms were stored on optical
disks for later reproduction. Bipolar pacing was performed from the
distal electrodes while recording from the proximal pair. All
measurements were made at 200 mm/s with electronic calipers with a
discrimination of 1 ms.
Particular attention was paid to recording the His bundle electrogram during tachycardia3 or to entrain the tachycardia by atrial pacing6 to confirm or exclude a BBR mechanism. When necessary, additional catheters, such as a decapolar catheter with short interelectrode distance7 or a steerable catheter, were introduced to record the His bundle electrogram, a bundle-branch electrogram, or both.
Tachycardia Mechanism Definitions
VT was considered to be reentrant when it was induced
and terminated by electrical stimulation. The observation of manifest
fusion during transient entrainment by pacing from the RVA in all
entrained BBR-VTs and in 29 entrained MR-VTs also supported reentry.
MR-VT diagnosis was established when BBR was ruled out as the reentrant
VT
mechanism.3 4
BBR-VT diagnosis was established according to previously
published criteria (criteria
A)2 3 4 6 :
(1) QRS-complex morphology with typical BBB pattern consistent with
ventricular depolarization through the appropriate bundle branch; (2)
AV dissociation during tachycardia; (3) exclusion of a tachycardia from
supraventricular origin by established criteria; (4) prolonged HV
interval during sinus rhythm; (5) a stable His or bundle-branch
electrogram preceding each ventricular activation during tachycardia
with an HV interval longer than, equal to, or <10 ms shorter than that
recorded during sinus rhythm; and (6) spontaneous changes in the bundle
potential CL preceding similar changes in the ventricular CL. Because
BBR has been found to be the tachycardia mechanism despite criterion 6
not being
demonstrated,5 8
BBR-VT diagnosis was also established when all the following criteria
(criteria B) were fulfilled: (1) all 6 criteria A were fulfilled except
for criterion 6, that is, spontaneous changes in the bundle potential
CL followed rather than preceded similar changes in the ventricular CL;
(2) 1 additional BBR-VT morphologies were also inducible and
fulfilled all criteria A; (3) the difference in tachycardia CL was 
30
ms compared with those of the other induced BBR-VTs; (4) no
MR-VT, either sustained or nonsustained, was inducible; (5) the patient
had no structural heart disease; and (6) the inducibility of all
tachycardias was suppressed after bundle-branch ablation. Finally,
observation of orthodromic concealed fusion (concealed fusion with
tachycardia QRS-complex morphology preservation) during entrainment by
pacing from the atrium was an additional criterion sufficient but not
mandatory to distinguish BBR-VT from
MR-VT.6
Suppression of inducibility after right or, in patient 6, left bundle-branch ablation, both at baseline and during isoproterenol infusion, was achieved in all except 2 entrained BBR-VTs. Bundle-branch ablation was not performed in these 2 BBR-VTs or in 2 nonentrained BBR-VTs because BBR-VT had never been clinically documented, it was well tolerated and difficult to induce, and defibrillator implantation (patients 10, 11, and 14) or successful catheter ablation (patient 13) of the clinical tachycardia was performed.
Interfascicular tachycardia was distinguished from the 4 BBR-VTs with an RBBB configuration by fascicular electrograms and because the former typically displays a markedly shorter HV interval (>10 ms) than that recorded during sinus rhythm.
AVNRT diagnosis was established according to previously published standard criteria.7
Entrainment Pacing Protocol
Transient entrainment was attempted in all
tachycardias by pacing from the RVA. Pacing was performed continuously
during tachycardia for >5 seconds (7±7 seconds) with a CL 10 to 30 ms
shorter than the TCL. Subsequent entrainment sequences were performed
with 5- to 20-ms decreases in the pacing CL until tachycardia
termination or until the patient’s condition deteriorated. Standard
definitions were used to define successful tachycardia
entrainment.6 9 10
The PPI was measured from the last stimulus artifact to the beginning
of the first rapid deflection of the RVA
electrogram.
Statistical Analysis
Parametric data are presented as mean±SD. ANOVA was
used to compare parametric data differences between tachycardia groups.
After demonstration of significant differences between the groups, post
hoc tachycardia group pair comparisons were made by use of
Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparison procedures. After
demonstration of normality by Shapiro-Wilk’s
W test, nonpaired Student’s
t test was used to compare
parametric data differences when tachycardias were divided into only 2
groups. A value of P<0.05 was
considered significant.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
There were no significant differences (P=0.62) in TCL between the BBR-VT (297±41 ms) and MR-VT (304±55 ms) groups. The AVNRT group (347±56 ms) had a significantly (P<0.01) longer TCL than the other 2 tachycardia groups. Differences between TCL and entrainment CL were nonsignificant (P=0.35) between the BBR-VT (16±6 ms), MR-VT (15±6 ms), and AVNRT (14±8 ms) groups. No BBR-VT had 1:1 AV conduction.
PPI-TCL Differences According to the
Tachycardia Mechanism
Tachycardia entrainment pacing from the RVA was not
achieved in 3 BBR-VTs because they were nonsustained and in a fourth
because it was repeatedly terminated by pacing 10 ms faster than the
TCL. The difference between the PPI and the TCL (PPI-TCL) was
significantly (P<0.0001)
shorter in the BBR-VT group (9±11 ms, 95% CI 2 to 16 ms) than in the
MR-VT (109±48 ms, 95% CI 96 to 122 ms) and the AVNRT (150±29 ms,
95% CI 142 to 158 ms) groups
(Figures 2 through 4). The PPI-TCL was also significantly
(P<0.001) shorter in the MR-VT
group than in the AVNRT group.
|
|
|
No BBR-VT showed a PPI-TCL
(Figure 3
) >30 ms (range -12 to 24 ms) except for the
tachycardia of BBR-VT patient 1, which showed a 47-ms difference
(Table).
Retrospective review of the filmed RVA catheter fluoroscopic position
revealed inadvertent displacement to a superior position close to the
His bundle, and pacing from this site produced a QRS complex with an
inferior axis. In addition, local activation time of this site during
tachycardia was 15 ms after the onset of the QRS complex, in contrast
to other BBR-VTs with LBBB configuration and short PPI-TCL, in which
RVA local activation was never >5 ms after the QRS-complex onset
(-8.8±11 ms). This PPI was not included in the statistical analysis
because of incorrect RVA catheter positioning. No MR-VT or AVNRT
(Figure 4) showed a PPI-TCL <30 ms (range 21 to 211 and
100 to 215 ms, respectively) except for 2 MR-VTs (21 and 29 ms) in 2
patients with prior myocardial infarction. There was a high overlap of
PPI-TCL values between the MR-VT and AVNRT groups
(Figure 2).
PPI-TCL Differences According to the
QRS-Complex Configuration and the Underlying Heart Disease
No significant differences
(P=0.52) were found in the
PPI-TCL between the 18 MR-VTs with an LBBB (103±55 ms, range 21 to
195 ms) and the 41 MR-VTs with an RBBB (112±46 ms, range 29 to 211 ms)
QRS-complex configuration
(Figure 4). No significant differences
(P=0.46) were found in the
PPI-TCLs among MR-VTs when grouped according to the underlying
structural heart disease (101±50 ms in the prior myocardial infarction
group, 138±30 ms in the idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy group,
124±57 ms in the right ventricular dysplasia group, 101±56 ms in the
valvular heart disease group, and 113±47 ms in the non–apparent
structural heart disease group).
The PPI-TCL was significantly (P<0.0001) longer in AVNRTs with RBBB (181±20 ms, 95% CI 167 to 195 ms) than in AVNRTs without BBB (142±25 ms, 95% CI 134 to 150 ms). The PPI-TCL was 133 ms in the single AVNRT with LBBB.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
PPI-TCL Differences According to Tachycardia Mechanisms
The results of this study demonstrate entrainment of BBR-VT pacing from the RVA results in a PPI similar (<30 ms difference)9 10 to the TCL. Therefore, the lack of this response, provided that the RVA catheter is correctly positioned, should be considered highly suggestive of tachycardia mechanisms other than BBR. Conversely, PPI-TCL differences <30 ms should be considered indicative but not diagnostic of BBR, because this was also found in 2 of the 59 MR-VTs. In such cases, other methods should be used to establish the definitive tachycardia mechanism. A PPI-TCL <30 ms after entrainment pacing from the RVA in some MR-VTs is not surprising, because in this setting, part of the reentrant circuit may be located in the right ventricle12 in close proximity to the pacing area at the RVA.
Results of the present study also demonstrated that differentiation of BBR-VT from the rare cases of nodal tachycardias with AV dissociation11 13 can be readily and safely achieved by the PPI-TCL because no AVNRT showed this difference to be <100 ms. In theory, a similar response should be observed in microreentrant tachycardias confined to the His or proximal bundle branches.14 Other mechanisms of wide-QRS-complex tachycardia that theoretically may exhibit a short PPI-TCL, such as atrioventricular reentry through an accessory pathway, consistently have 1:1 AV conduction, and therefore, differentiation from BBR-VT can be easily achieved without the PPI.
No sustained interfascicular reentrant tachycardias were included in the study, and therefore, the PPI-TCL difference after entrainment by pacing from the RVA is speculative. From a theoretical point of view, however, a difference >30 ms should be expected in this setting, because the reentrant circuit is located in the left ventricle away from the RVA.
PPI-TCL Differences According to the
QRS-Complex Configuration and the Underlying Heart Disease
Interestingly, there were no significant
differences in the PPI-TCL found in BBR-VTs and MR-VTs with an LBBB
QRS-complex configuration compared with that found in those with an
RBBB QRS-complex configuration. This underlines the fact that VT
QRS-complex configuration, of either a BBR or an MR mechanism, is
simply dependent on the location of the exit from the slow conducting
portion of the reentrant circuit rather than on the circuit location
itself, close to or away from the RVA.
More remarkable was the lack of significant differences between the PPI-TCL in the MR-VT postinfarction and arrhythmogenic dysplasia groups. Right ventricular diffuse slow conduction and a basal or outflow tract location of the reentrant circuit far from the RVA in the latter group may explain this finding.
Finally, the right bundle-branch distal insertion is in the RVA, and this explains the QRS-complex superior axis in most BBR-VTs with LBBB configuration.4 Sometimes BBR-VT with LBBB QRS-complex configuration presents with an inferior axis, however, suggesting an arborizing or a more superior insertion of the right bundle branch. Thus, theoretically the PPI-TCL could be >30 ms in this setting, although this was not the case in the single entrained BBR-VT with LBBB QRS-complex configuration and inferior axis.
Study Limitations
Because oscillations in the VV interval preceding those
of the HH interval have been reported in
BBR-VT,6 8 BBR
cannot be completely ruled out as the tachycardia mechanism unless a
His or bundle-branch electrogram is recorded that displays no 1:1
tachycardia association or unless manifest or antidromic concealed
fusion (concealed fusion with the same QRS complex as that recorded
during sinus rhythm pacing from the same site and with the same CL as
during entrainment)6 is
observed during entrainment by atrial pacing of a tachycardia with LBBB
QRS-complex configuration. Therefore, some VTs failing to show these
responses in the present and
other3 4 studies
could have been included in the MR-VT group despite having a BBR
mechanism. BBR is highly unlikely in the absence of significant
His-Purkinje
disease,3 4 5
however, and except for 10 MR-VT patients, none showed prolonged QRS
complex (>120 ms) or HV interval (>60 ms) during sinus rhythm in the
present study. In 9 of these 10 patients, BBR was considered highly
unlikely because the His bundle electrogram showed no 1:1 tachycardia
association, because there were supraventricular captures with a
different QRS-complex morphology, or because the His bundle electrogram
followed the onset of the QRS complex and preceded the perihisian
ventricular activation.
Four BBR-VTs could not be entrained by ventricular pacing because they were nonsustained or terminated at the longest pacing CL. These factors, together with TCL oscillations, limit the use of the PPI analysis for the elucidation of a wide-QRS-complex tachycardia mechanism. Despite these potential limitations, however, the PPI approach could be performed in the majority of BBR-VTs.
Clinical Implications
PPI analysis after entrainment pacing from the RVA
offers several advantages to the conventional diagnostic approach of
wide-QRS-complex tachycardia with AV dissociation. First, a PPI-TCL
>30 ms rules out a BBR mechanism, provided that the RVA catheter is
correctly positioned. The greater this value, the more reliable the
certainty of exclusion. Therefore, this obviates the need to record a
His bundle or bundle-branch electrogram or to achieve tachycardia
entrainment by atrial pacing. Second, this approach does not require
the introduction of catheters or pacing maneuvers different from those
regularly used in standard electrophysiological studies of
wide-QRS-complex tachycardia. Finally, this approach is time-saving and
can be attempted even in poorly tolerated VTs, because only a brief
ventricular pacing train is required.
Conclusions
The analysis of the PPI after tachycardia entrainment
by pacing from the RVA is useful to differentiate BBR from other
mechanisms of wide-QRS-complex tachycardia with AV dissociation. A
PPI-TCL >30 ms suggests mechanisms other than BBR, provided that the
RVA catheter is correctly positioned. Conversely, a PPI-TCL <30 ms
is indicative but not diagnostic of a BBR mechanism, and further
investigation is warranted to exclude or confirm pure ventricular MR by
conventional approaches using His-Purkinje recordings or surface ECG
analysis during atrial and ventricular entrainment. The simplicity of
the PPI approach supports its inclusion early in the diagnostic workup
of wide-QRS-complex tachycardia with AV
dissociation.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
This study was honored with the PES award at the 10th International Madrid Arrhythmia Meeting, Madrid, Spain, April 1999, and the award of the MAPFRE Foundation and the Spanish Society of Cardiology, Seville, Spain, October 1999. The authors wish to thank Dr Angel Arenal and Dr Txules Martinez-Alday for their critical review of the manuscript, Elena Morala, RN, for her technical assistance, and Martin Hadley-Adams for his assistance with the English language.
Received August 1, 2000; revision received October 13, 2000; accepted October 18, 2000.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. Tchou P, Jazayeri M, Denker ST, et al. Transcatheter electrical ablation of right bundle branch: a method of treating macroreentrant ventricular tachycardia attributed to bundle branch reentry. Circulation. 1988;78:246–257.
2. Cohen TJ, Chien WW, Lurie KG, et al. Radiofrequency catheter ablation for treatment of bundle branch reentrant ventricular tachycardia: results and long-term follow-up. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;18:1767–1773.[Abstract]
3.
Caceres J, Jazayeri
M, McKinnie J, et al. Sustained bundle branch reentry as a mechanism of
clinical tachycardia.
Circulation. 1989;79:256–270.
4. Blanck Z, Dhala A, Deshpande S, et al. Bundle branch reentrant tachycardia: cumulative experience in 48 patients. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 1993;4:253–262.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
5.
Merino JL, Carmona
JR, Fernández-Lozano I, et al. Mechanisms of sustained ventricular
tachycardia in myotonic dystrophy: implications for catheter ablation.
Circulation. 1998;98:541–546.
6.
Merino JL, Peinado
R, Fernández-Lozano I, et al. Transient entrainment of bundle-branch
reentry by atrial and ventricular stimulation: elucidation of the
tachycardia mechanism through analysis of the surface ECG.
Circulation. 1999;100:1784–1790.
7. Josephson ME. Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology: Techniques and Interpretations. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lea & Febiger; 1993.
8. Skanes AC, Green MS, Tang ASL. A case of wide QRS complex tachycardia after ventricular tachycardia surgery. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1997;20:356–358.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9.
Stevenson WG, Khan
H, Sager P, et al. Identification of reentry circuit sites during
catheter mapping and radiofrequency ablation of ventricular tachycardia
late after myocardial infarction.
Circulation. 1993;88:1647–1670.
10.
Kalman JM, Van
Hare GF, Olgin JE, et al. Ablation of "incisional" reentrant atrial
tachycardia complicating surgery for congenital heart disease: use of
entrainment to define a critical isthmus of conduction.
Circulation. 1996;93:502–512.
11. Bauernfeind RA, Wu D, Denes PO, et al. Retrograde block during dual pathway atrioventricular nodal reentrant paroxysmal tachycardia. Am J Cardiol. 1978;42:499–505.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
12. Merino JL, Almendral J, Villacastín JP, et al. Radiofrequency catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia from the right ventricle late after myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 1996;77:1261–1263.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13. Hamdan MH, Kalman JM, Lesh MD, et al. Narrow complex tachycardia with VA block: diagnostic and therapeutic implications. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1998;21:1196–1206.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Tai YT, Lee KL. Interfascicular macroreentry versus intrafascicular microreentry. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 1996;7:275. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  E. M. Aliot, W. G. Stevenson, J. M. Almendral-Garrote, F. Bogun, C. H. Calkins, E. Delacretaz, P. D. Bella, G. Hindricks, P. Jais, M. E. Josephson, et al. EHRA/HRS Expert Consensus on Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Arrhythmias: Developed in a partnership with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), a Registered Branch of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS); in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) Europace, June 1, 2009; 11(6): 771 - 817. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Bogun, B. Desjardins, T. Crawford, E. Good, K. Jongnarangsin, H. Oral, A. Chugh, F. Pelosi, and F. Morady Post-Infarction Ventricular Arrhythmias Originating in Papillary Muscles J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 6, 2008; 51(18): 1794 - 1802. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Alvarez, L. Tercedor, J. M Lozano, and J. Azpitarte Sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia associated with unrepaired double-chambered right ventricle Europace, October 1, 2006; 8(10): 901 - 903. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K Matsuoka, E Fujii, and F Uchida Successful radiofrequency catheter ablation of "clockwise" and "counterclockwise" bundle branch re-entrant ventricular tachycardia in the absence of myocardial or valvar dysfunction without detecting bundle branch potentials Heart, April 1, 2003; 89(4): e12 - 12. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||