Abstract
The His bundle electrogram recorded at electrophysiologic study clearly differentiates atrioventricular (AV) node disease from distal conduction system disease. The distal conduction system may be tested further by infusing procainamide (10–15 mg/kg) intravenously. High-grade distal AV block or prolongation of the HV interval >80 ms was defined as an abnormal response to this test. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 79 patients who underwent electrophysiologic study with intravenous procainamide. An abnormal response to procainamide was observed in only 3% of 37 patients with a normal baseline HV (≤ ms), in 48% of 27 patients with mild HV prolongation (56 to 70 ms), and in all 15 patients with moderate HV prolongation (>70 ms) (P <0.0001 for the trend). Procainamide induced high-grade AV block in 4 of 28 patients (14%) studied for syncope and in 1 of 51 patients (2%) studied for ventricular tachycardia. Syncope as the indication for electrophysiologic study (P = 0.05) and left bundle branch block morphology (P = 0.03) were predictors of high-grade AV block; baseline HV and QTc intervals were significantly prolonged in patients who developed AV block with procainamide. We identified a strong linear correlation (R = 0.85) between post-drug and baseline HV intervals, with a regression slope of 1.17 ± 0.09 and an intercept (± standard error) of 5.8 ± 5.0 ms. This linear response to procainamide and published prospective studies support pacing syncope patients with baseline HV >70 ms. Therefore, procainamide infusion during the electrophysiologic study of patients with undifferentiated syncope should be reserved for those with mild HV prolongation from approximately 55 to 70 ms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kapoor WN, Hammill SC, Gersh BJ. Diagnosis and natural history of syncope and the role of invasive electrophysiologic testing. Am J Cardiol 1989;63:730–734.
Josephson ME, Seides SF. Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology: Techniques and Interpretations. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1979:79–101.
McAnulty JH, Rahimtoola SH, Murphy E, et al. Natural history of “high-risk” bundle-branch block: Final report of a prospective study. N Engl J Med 1982;307:137–143.
Twidale N, Heddle WF, Tonkin AM. Procainamide administration during electrophysiology study-Utility as a provocative test for intermittent atrioventricular block. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1988;11:1388–1397.
Tonkin AM, Heddle WF, Tornos P. Intermittent atrioventricular block: Procainamide administration as a provocative test. Aust N Z J Med 1978;8:594–602.
Shen WK, Holmes DR Jr. Cardiac arrhythmias. D. Clinical electrophysiologic assessment. In: Giuliani ER, Gersh BJ, McGoon MD, et al., eds. Mayo Clinic Practice of Cardiology, 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby, 1996:821–848.
Glantz SA. Primer of Biostatistics, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997:108–372.
Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958;53:457–481.
Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc [B] 1972;34:187–220.
Ogunkelu JB, Damato AN, Akhtar M, et al. Electrophysiologic effects of procainamide in subtherapeutic to therapeutic doses on human atrioventricular conduction system. Am J Cardiol 1976;37:724–731.
Josephson ME, Caracta AR, Ricciutti MA, et al. Electrophysiologic properties of procainamide in man. Am J Cardiol 1974;33:596–603.
Scheinman MM, Weiss AN, Shafton E, et al. Electrophysiologic effects of procaine amide in patients with intraventricular conduction delay. Circulation 1974;49:522–529.
Gregoratos G, Cheitlin MD, Conill A, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for implantation of cardiac pacemakers and antiarrhythmia devices: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Pacemaker Implantation). J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;31:1175–1209.
Dhingra RC, Palileo E, Strasberg B, et al. Significance of the HV interval in 517 patients with chronic bifascicular block. Circulation 1981;64:1265–1271.
Scheinman MM, Peters RW, Suavé MJ, et al. Value of the H-Q interval in patients with bundle branch block and the role of prophylactic permanent pacing. Am J Cardiol 1982;50:1316–1322.
Shen W-K. Role of invasive electrophysiologic testing in the evaluation and management of syncope. CEPR [Cardiac Electrophysiol Rev] 1997;4:478–485.
DiMarco JP. Value and limitations of electrophysiologic testing for syncope. Cardiol Clin 1997;15:219–232.
Kapoor WN. Evaluation and management of the patient with syncope. JAMA 1992;268:2553–2560.
Narula OS. His Bundle Electrocardiography and Clinical Electrophysiology. Philadelphia: FA Davis Company, 1971.
Scheinman MM, Peters RW, Modin G, et al. Prognostic value of infranodal conduction time in patients with chronic bundle branch block. Circulation 1977;56:240–244.
Rosen DM, Palileo E, Westveer D, et al. Sudden and nonsudden cardiovascular mortality in patients with chronic bifascicular block. Am J Cardiol 1982;49:1006 (abstract).
Roden DM. Antiarrhythmic drugs. In: Hardman JG, Limbird LE, Molinoff PB, et al., eds. Goodman & Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996:839–874.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Girard, S.E., Munger, T.M., Hammill, S.C. et al. The Effect of Intravenous Procainamide on the HV Interval at Electrophysiologic Study. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 3, 129–137 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009809212028
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009809212028