Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A New and Simple Method for Distinguishing Complete from Incomplete Block Through the Cavotricuspid Isthmus

  • Ablation
  • Published:
Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: A complete line of block (CLOB) in the cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) is the endpoint of typical atrial flutter ablation. Before CTI block is obtained, a progressive CTI conduction delay due to an incomplete line of block (InLOB) can be difficult to distinguish from CLOB. The purpose of this study was to assess a new simple approach based on the changes in atrio-ventricular (AV) conduction delays during septal and lateral right atrial pacing, to distinguish a CLOB from an InLOB during typical atrial flutter (AFL) ablation.

Methods and Results: Forty patients who presented an InLOB before a CLOB, and a stable (AV) conduction delay at 600 ms cycle length pacing (when in sinus rhythm), during AFL ablation were included in this study. A 24-pole mapping catheter was positioned so that 2 adjacent dipoles bracketed the targeted CTI line of block (LOB), with proximal dipoles lateral to the LOB and distal dipoles in the coronary sinus. Two pacing sites were lateral (position L1 and L2) and one was septal (position S) to the LOB, with locations L1 and S closest to the LOB. During L1, L2 and S site pacing, the delay between the pacing artefact and the peak of the R wave in a surface ECG (lead II) was measured.

We measured the following conduction delays (mean ± SD in ms), during InLOB versus CLOB: (L1 to R) 320.5 ± 68.0 versus 367.0 ± 62.0, p = 0.001; (L2 to R) 333.0 ± 59.0 versus 338.0 ± 62.0, p = 0.663, (S to R) 259.4 ± 51.5 versus 247.1 ± 55.5, p = 0.987. We calculated the following data during an InLOB versus a CLOB: (L1R–L2R) − 12.3 ± 7 versus 20.2 ± 12.7, p = 0.001; (L1R–SR) 51.1 ± 21.5 versus 120.1 ± 16.6, p < 0.05. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for CLOB with (L1R-SR > 94 ms) and with (L1R-L2R > 0 ms) were respectively; 100%, 98%, 98% and 100%.

Conclusions: This study establishes that lateral versus septal right atrial pacing sites combined with the measure of AV conduction delay on a surface ECG can be useful to distinguish a CLOB from an InLOB during AFL ablation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chen J, de Chillou C, Basiouny T, Sadoul N, Da Silva Filho J, Magnin-Poull I, Messier M, Aliot E. Cavotricuspid isthmus mapping to access bidirectional block during common atrial flutter radiofrequency ablation. Circulation 1999;100:2507–2513.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shah D, Haíssaguerre M, Takahashi A, Jaís P, Hocini M, Clémenty J. Differential pacing for distinguishing block from persistent conduction through an ablation line. Circulation 2000;102:1517–1522.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shah D, Haíssaguerre M, Jaís P, Fischer B, Takahashi A, Hocini M, Clementy J. Simplified electrophysiologically directed catheter ablation of recurrent common atrial flutter. Circulation 1997;96:2505–2508.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tada H, Oral H, Sticherling C, Chough SP, Baker RL, Wasmer C, Pelosi F, Knight BP, Strickberger A, Morady F. Double potentials along the ablation line as a guide to radiofrequency ablation of typical atrial flutter. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 38:750–755.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Anselme F, Savouré A, Cribier A, Saoudi N. Catheter ablation of typical atrial flutter, a randomized comparison of 2 methods for determining complete bidirectional isthmus block. Circulation 2000;103:1434–1439.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kirkorian G, Moncada E, Chevalier P, Canu G, Claudel JP, Bellon C, Lyon L, Touboul P. Radiofrequency ablation of atrial flutter: efficacy of an anatomically guided approach. Circulation 1994;90:2804–2814.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Shah D, Haíssaguerre M, Jaís P, Takahashi A, Hocini M, Clementy J. High-density mapping of activation through an incomplete isthmus ablation line. Circulation 1999;99:211–215.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen J, de Chillou C, Hoff PI, Rossvoll O, Andronache M, Sadoul N, Magnin-Poull I, Erga S, Aliot E, Ohm OJ. Identification of extremely slow conduction in the cavotricuspid isthmus during common atrial flutter ablation. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2002;7(1):67–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. takahashi A, Shah DC, Jais P, Hocini M, Clementy J, Haissaguerre M. Partial cavotricuspid isthmus block before ablation in patients with typical aatrial flutter. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;33(7):1996–2002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Arenal A, Almendral J, Alday JM, Villacastin J, Ormaetxe JM, Sande JL, Perez-Castellano N, Gonzalez S, Ortiz M, Delcan JL. Rate-dependent conduction block of the crista terminalis in patients with typical atrial flutter. Influence on evaluation of cavotricuspid isthmus conduction block. Circulation 1999;99:2771–2778.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tada H, Oral H, Ozaydin M, Chugh A, Sharf C, Hassan S, Greenstein R, Pelosi F, Knight BP, Strickberger SA, Morady F. Randomized comparison of anatomic and electrogram mapping approaches to ablation of typical atrial flutter. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2002;13(7):662–666.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tai CT, Haque A, Lin YK, Tsao HM, Ding YA, Chang MS, Chen SA. Double potential interval and transisthmus conduction time for prediction of cavotricuspid isthmus block after ablation of typical atrial flutter. J Interv Card Electropysiol 2002;7(11):77–82.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Andronache M, de Chillou C, Miljoen H, Magnin-Poull I, Messier M, Dotto P, Doan T, Houriezz P, Bineau-Jorisse A, Thiel B, Brembillat-Perrot B, Massin JL, Sadoul N, Aliot E. Correlation between electrogram morphology and standard criteria validate bi-directional cavotricuspid block in common atrial flutter ablation. Europace 2003;5(4):335–341.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Klug D, Lacroix D, Marquie C, Mairesse G, Alix D, Dennetiere S, d'Hautefeuille B, Zghal N and Kacet S. Prospective evaluation of a simplified approach for common atrial flutter radio-frequency ablation with only two catheters. Europace 2001;3(3):208–215.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tada H, Nogami A, Naito S, Horie Y, Suguta M, Nakatsugawa M, Hoshizaki H, Taniguchi K. Quantitative analysis of surface P-Wave morphology in isthmus ablation for type 1 atrial flutter: differentiation between complete isthmus block and slow isthmus conduction. Jpn Circ J. 1999;63(4):244–248.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shah DC, Takahashi A, Jais P, Hocini M, Peng JT, Clementy J, Haissaguerre M. Tracking dynamic conduction recovery across the cavotricuspid isthmus. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;35(6):1478–1484.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Weiss C, Willems S, Hoffmann M, Meinert T. Impact of the ECG for the detection of intra-atrial conduction block after flutter ablation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1999;22(10):1457–1465.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mairesse GH, Lacroix D, Klug D, Le Franc P, Kouakam C, Kacet S. The usefulness of surface ECG 12-lead electrogram to predict intra-atrial conduction block after successful atrial flutter ablation. J Electrocardiol 2003;36(3):227–235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tai CT, Tsai CF, Hsieh MH, Lin WS, Lin YK, Lee SH, Yu WC, Ding YA, Chang MS, Chen SA. Effects of cavotricuspid isthmus on atrioventricular node electrophysiology in patients with typical atrial flutter. Circulation 2001;104:1501–1505.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Dijon, France

    Gabriel Laurent (MD), Alexandra Bourcier, Géraldine Bertaux, Stéphane Fromentin, Michel Fraison, Stéphanie Gonzalez, François Saint Pierre & Jean Eric Wolf

  2. Département de Cardiologie, Hôpital Bocage, 3 Bd de Lattre de Tassigny, Dijon, 21000, France

    Gabriel Laurent (MD)

Authors
  1. Gabriel Laurent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexandra Bourcier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Géraldine Bertaux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stéphane Fromentin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michel Fraison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stéphanie Gonzalez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. François Saint Pierre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jean Eric Wolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriel Laurent.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Laurent, G., Bourcier, A., Bertaux, G. et al. A New and Simple Method for Distinguishing Complete from Incomplete Block Through the Cavotricuspid Isthmus. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 14, 175–182 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-006-6085-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-006-6085-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation