食管心房调搏在室上速诊断中价值新探讨

目的：评价食管心房调搏对室上性心动过速诊断的准确性。方法：将111例室上速患者心内和食管电生理检查结果进行比较。结果：111例室上性心动过速患者中，经食管心房调搏检查，诊断为房室结内折返性心动过速（AVNRT）41例，准确率91％；诊断为房室折返性心动过速（AVRT）53例，准确率92％；诊断为房性心动过速（AT包括房内折返陛心动过速和房性自律性心动过速）6例，准确率100％；诊断为窦房结折返性心动过速（SART）1例，准确率100％。根据PE-PV1时距判定房速激动起源点以及左右房室旁道位置与心内电生理检查结果基本一致。结论：食管心房调搏在室上速诊断中具有很高的价值。     

应用食管心房调搏术检测评价硫氮酮对阵发性室上性心动过速的作用

本研究通过食管心房调搏方法，对20例阵发性室上性心动过速（PSVT）频繁发作的患者，静推硫氮革酮观察其前后电生理效应，探讨其作用机理及临床意义。1．材料和方法：20例中男8例，女12例，年龄平均44．6（13～17）岁。根据电生理诊断标准。房室结折返性心动过速（AVNRT）7例（慢快型）；房室折返性心动过速（AVRT）12例，倾向型10例，逆向型2例；房内折返性心动过速1例。其中1例患高心病，心功能Ⅱ级，1例患二尖瓣脱垂，其它无器质性疾病。检查前停用抗心律失常药物至少5个半衰期。应用食管心房调搏在窦性心律下对心房作分组递增起搏…     

食管心房调搏诊断室上性心动过速的临床研究

为探讨食管心房调搏揭示室上性心动过速发生机制的价值和局限性,回顾性分析成功射频导管消融的１３８例隐匿性单房室旁道参与的顺向型房室折返性心动过速和１００例单一类型房室结折返性心动过速的食管心房调搏结果。结果显示：前１３８例中,３例前间隔旁道引起者食管心房调搏均诊断为房室结折返性心动过速余为左右侧其它部位的旁道,诊断正确。后１００例中,５例为慢－慢型,２例为快－慢型,食管心房调搏均诊断为房室折返性心动     

RP’间期与慢快型房室结折返性心动过速的相关性

经食管心房调搏(TEAP)是诊断室上性心动过速(SVT)的常规无创性电生理检查方法。笔者通过对176例经心内电生理(EPS)证实心动过速类型的患者进行回顾性分析,旨在探讨食管导联RP’间期与慢-快型房室结折返性心动过速(S-F AVN-RT)的相关性。     

应用食管心房调搏术检测评价硫氮酮对阵发性室上性心动过速的作用(摘要)

本研究通过食管心房调搏方法，对20例阵发性室上性心动过速（PSVT）频繁发作的患者，静脉注射硫氮书酮，观察其前后电生理效应，探讨其作用机理及临床意义。1．材料和方法：20例中男8例，女12例，年龄平均44．6（13～71岁）。根据电生理诊断标准。房室结折返性心动过速（AVNRT）7例；房室折返性心动过速（AVRT）12例，（顺向型10例、逆向型2例）；房内折返性心动过速（PAT）l例。检查前停用抗心律失常药物至少5个半衰期。应用食管心房调搏方法在窦性心律下，对心房作分组递增起搏及程控期前刺激法（SI～S。），步长10ms进行正反扫描…     

食管心房调搏对室上性心动过速诊断的准确性评价

评价食管电生理检查对室上性心动过速诊断的准确性。方法 比较102例室上性心动过速经心内和食管电生理检查的结果。结果 102例室上性心动过速101例分型诊断一致：房室折返性心运过速（AVRT）58例,房室结折返性心运过速（AVNRT）37例,房内折返性心动过速（IART）5例,窦房结折返性心动过速（SART）1例,房性自律性心动过速（AAT）1例。6例房性心动过速（IART5例,AAT1例）起源于右房还是左房和57例房室折返性心动过速的旁路位于右侧还是左侧,两种检查结果完全一致。结论 食管心房调搏对室上性心动过速的分型诊断和初步定位诊断具有很高的准确性,这对选择射频消融术病例和简化消融术程序具有重要意义。     

食管心房调搏诊断室上性心动过速及与心内电生理对照研究

目的：探讨食管心房调搏（TEAP）揭示室上性心动过速（PSVT）发生机制的价值和局限性。方法，回顾性分析射频消融成功（RECA）的132例PSVT者的TEAP结果，其中隐匿性单房室旁道以与的顺向型房室折返性过速（AVRT）86例，房室结折返性过速46例。结果：86例房室结折返性过速（AVNRT）中，2例例前间壁旁路引起者TEAP均诊断为AVNRT，余为左右侧其它部位的旁路，诊断正确，46例AVNRT中，1例为慢－慢型，1例为快－慢型，TEAP均诊断为AVRT，余为慢－快型，结论：TEAP目前是鉴别两者的最佳无创性方法，但前间隔旁路引起者易误诊为AVNRT，慢－慢型和快－慢型AVNRT易误诊为AVRT。     

慢快型房室结折返性心动过速的诱发及终止方式

慢快型房室结折返性心动过速（AVNRT）是阵发性室上性心动过速的另一常见类型，有时在体表心电图不易与顺向性房室折返性心动过速（AVRT）鉴别。了解慢快型AVNRT的诱发和终止方式及其电生理特征，在与AVRT的诊断及鉴别诊断方面有着重要的临床意义。     

经食管心脏电生理检查误诊房室折返性心动过速的不典型房室结折返性心动过速的特点及分析

目的探讨食管电生理检查中被误诊为房室折返性心动过速的不典型的慢快型房室结折返性心动过速的特点。方法回顾性分析5例误诊为房室折返性心动过速患者的食管电生理及心内电生理资料。结果 5例患者在食管电生理检查S1S2程控期前刺激中,均未观察到S2-R间期有跳跃性延长,心动过速的R-P-EB间期70ms;逆行P-波在V1导联直立,下壁导联倒置;食管电生理诊断为左后间隔隐匿性旁道参与的房室折返性心动过速。心内电生理诊断为慢快型房室结折返性心动过速,并成功消融慢径路。结论部分R-P-EB间期70ms的不典型慢快型房室结折返性心动过速食管电生理特点与后间隔隐匿性旁道参与的房室折返性心动过速类似,必要时需心内电生理检查加以明确。     

经食管心房调搏中房室结折返性心动过速的诱发因素分析

目的 探讨经食管心房调搏(transesophageal atrial pacing,TEAP)检查中诱发房室结折返性心动过速(atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia,AVNRT)的因素.方法 随机抽取接受TEAP检查的163例患者进行回顾性研究,心内电生理检查均可诱发...     

食管电生理诊断室上性心动过速及其分型的意义

目的探讨食管电生理对室上性心动过速(SVT)诊断及分型的准确性。方法收集近两年经射频消融治疗的SVT病例,选择其中食管电生理和心内电生理资料完整的41例,将两种电生理检查对SVT诊断及分型比较,进行χ2检验,以P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果两种电生理检查诊断房室结双径路(DAVNP)、慢快型房室结折返性心动过速(AVNRT)、常见的顺向型房室折返性心动过速(AVRT)差异无统计学意义;食管电生理对房室旁路(AP)的粗略定位准确性较高,但对快慢型AVNRT、慢AP参于的AVRT与房性心动过速不易辨别。结论食管电生理虽不易辨别少见型SVT,但诊断常见型SVT及分型准确性方面与心内电生理有相似的价值,且具有无创、简便、费用低等优点。     

食管电生理诊断阵发性室上性心动过速

目的探讨食管电生理诊断阵发性室上性心动过速(paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia,PSVT)及分型的准确性。方法收集经食管电生理和心内电生理检查并行射频消融治疗的PSVT42例,将两种电生理对PSVT的诊断及分型进行比较,用X2检验,以P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果两种电生理检查诊断房室结双径路、慢快型房室结折返性心动过速、常见的顺向型房室折返性心动过速差异无显著性,食管电生理对房室旁路的粗略定位准确性较高,但对快慢型房室结折返性心动过速、慢房室旁路参予的房室折返性心动过速与房性心动过速不易辨别。结论食管电生理诊断常见类型的PSVT与心内电生理有相似的价值,且具有无创、简便、费用低等优点;但对不常见或复杂的PSVT不易辨别。     

Differentiating atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia from junctional tachycardia: novel application of the delta H-A interval

Introduction: Junctional tachycardia (JT) and atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) can be difficult to differentiate. Yet, the two arrhythmias require distinct diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. We explored the utility of the delta H-A interval as a novel technique to differentiate these two tachycardias.
Methods: We included 35 patients undergoing electrophysiology study who had typical AVNRT, 31 of whom also had JT during slow pathway ablation, and four of whom had spontaneous JT during isoproterenol administration. We measured the H-A interval during tachycardia (H-A_T) and during ventricular pacing (H-A_P) from the basal right ventricle. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of measurements was assessed. Ventricular pacing was performed at approximately the same rate as tachycardia. The delta H-A interval was calculated as the H-A_P minus the H-A_T.
Results: There was excellent interobserver and intraobserver agreement for measurement of the H-A interval. The average delta H-A interval was −10 ms during AVNRT and 9 ms during JT (P < 0.00001). For the diagnosis of JT, a delta H-A interval ≥ 0 ms had the sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 83%, positive predictive value of 84%, and negative predictive value of 88%. The delta H-A interval was longer in men than in women with JT, but no gender-based differences were seen with AVNRT. There was no difference in the H-A interval based on age ≤ 60 years.
Conclusion: The delta H-A interval is a novel and reproducibly measurable interval that aids the differentiation of JT and AVNRT during electrophysiology studies.     

从慢慢型和慢快型房室结折返性心动过速电生理特性的差异分析折返环的不同

目的从慢慢型房室结折返性心动过速（AVNRT）和慢快型AVNRT的电生理特性的差异分析两型AVNRT间折返环的不同.方法在500例AVNRT患者中的59例慢慢型和60例慢快型之间,比较部分电生理特性的异同;同时在部分慢慢型和慢快型患者中应用2种方法（1）比较起搏时和心动过速时的HA间期的长度;（2）比较心动过速时心室刺激重整心动过速的不同.比较下传共径（LCP）的异同.结果慢慢型的前传慢径和逆传慢径有明显不同的传导时间;慢慢型的逆传慢径与慢快型的逆传快径有明显不同的传导时间和递减特性;和慢快型相比,2种方法均显示慢慢型有较长的LCP.结论 （1）慢慢型AVNRT中前传慢径和逆传慢径的传导时间明显不同;慢慢型较慢快型有较长的下传共径;（2）研究结果支持慢慢型AVNRT可能应用房室结的右侧后延伸和左侧后延伸分别形成心动过速的前传和逆传支而形成折返.     

Unusual induction of slow-fast atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia. Report of two cases

INTRODUCTION: Generally, the induction of typical atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) occurs with a premature atrial stimulus that blocks in the fast pathway and proceeds down the slow pathway slowly enough to allow the refractory fast pathway time to recover. We describe two cases in which a typical AVNRT was induced in an unusual fashion. RESULTS: The first case is a 41-year-old man with paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia. During the electrophysiology study, the atrial extrastimulus inducing the typical AVNRT was conducted simultaneously over the fast (AH) and the slow pathway (AH'). A successful ablation of the slow pathway was performed. During the follow-up no recurrence was noted. The second case is a 52-year-old woman with a Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome due to a left posterior accessory pathway. After 5 minutes of atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia (AVRT) induced by a ventricular extrastimulus, a variability of the antegrade conduction was noted in presence of the same VA conduction. In fact, a short AH interval (fast pathway) alternated with a more prolonged AH intervals (slow pathway) that progressively lengthened until a typical AVNRT was induced. The ablation of the accessory pathway eliminated both tachycardias. DISCUSSION: A rare manifestation of dual atrioventricular nodal pathways is a double ventricular response to an atrial impulse that may cause a tachycardia with an atrioventricular conduction of 1:2. In our first case, an atrial extrastimulus was simultaneously conducted over the fast and the slow pathway inducing an AVNRT. This nodal reentry implies two different mechanisms: 1) a retrograde block on the slow pathway impeding the activation of the slow pathway from the impulse coming down the fast pathway, and 2) a critical slowing of conduction in the slow pathway to allow the recovery of excitability of the fast pathway. Interestingly, in the second case, during an AVRT the atrial impulse suddenly proceeded alternately over the fast and the slow pathway. The progressive slowing of conduction over the slow pathway until a certain point which allows the recovery of excitability of the fast pathway determines the AVNRT. This is a case of "tachycardia-induced tachycardia" as confirmed by the fact that the ablation of the accessory pathway eliminated both tachycardias.     

Unmasking of a concealed slow pathway by atrioventricular simultaneous basic pacing

A 71-year-old woman with narrow QRS tachycardia was referred for catheter ablation. The clinical tachycardia was diagnosed as slow/fast form of atrioventricular (AV) nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) with the upper common pathway. Although neither conventional nor double atrial programmed extrastimulation (APS) showed any evidence of a dual AV nodal pathway, AV simultaneous pacing during basic stimulation preceding APS (AVSP-APS) reproducibly revealed a dual AV nodal pathway as a double ventricular response. The AVSP-APS pacing method may be helpful to unmask a “concealed slow pathway” in patients with AVNRT.     

快径间断逆传是房室结折返性心动过速的少见电生理表现

报道 4例房室结折返性心动过速 (AVNRT)的少见电生理表现———快径间断逆传。 4例经心电图和食管电生理检查证实为AVNRT的病人 ,心内电生理检查中心室刺激无快径逆传 ,遂静脉注射异丙肾上腺素和消融阻断慢径后观察室房 (VA)传导特点。结果 :4例病人基础电生理检查均无快径逆传。静脉注射异丙肾上腺素后心室刺激 ,3例显示快径逆传并诱发AVNRT ,1例仍不显示快径逆传。消融阻断慢径后 ,4例病人均显示良好的快径逆传。结论 :快径间断逆传是AVNRT的少见电生理特点 ,慢径和快径相互干扰是其产生的重要机制之一。     

快-慢型房室结折返性心动过速的电生理特征和射频消融治疗

报道８例快－慢型房室结折返性心动过速（ＡＶＮＲＴ）的电生理特征及射频消融治疗。其中３例为慢－快型ＡＶＮ－ＲＴ射频消融改良慢径后出现的快－慢型ＡＶＮＲＴ。８例均经消融慢径而成功终止心动过速。平均放电次数３±１．１次、平均放电时间１２０±３０．４ｓ、平均放电功率３０±１１Ｗ。随访６～２４个月，无复发。快－慢型ＡＶＮＲＴ具有以下临床电生理特征：①快径不应期短、慢径不应期长。②心内电刺激无房室结双径路现象。③心动过速能由心房刺激诱发。④心动过速时ＡＨ间期＜ＨＡ间期，冠状窦近端Ａ波最提前。熟悉快－慢型ＡＶＮＲＴ的电生理特征，对于鉴别房性心动过速及右后间隔旁道参与的房室折返性心动过速十分重要，也是指导快－慢型ＡＶＮＲＴ射频消融成功的关键。     

The VA relationship after differential atrial overdrive pacing: a novel tool for the diagnosis of atrial tachycardia in the electrophysiologic laboratory

Introduction: Despite recent advances in clinical electrophysiology, diagnosis of atrial tachycardia (AT) originating near Koch's triangle remains challenging. We sought a novel technique for rapid and accurate diagnosis of AT in the electrophysiologic laboratory.
Methods: Sixty-two supraventricular tachycardias including 18 ATs (10 ATs arising from near Koch's triangle), 32 atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardias (AVNRTs), and 12 orthodromic reciprocating tachycardias (ORTs) were studied. Overdrive pacing during the tachycardia from different atrial sites was performed, and the maximal difference in the postpacing VA intervals (last captured ventricular electrogram to the earliest atrial electrogram of the initial beat after pacing) among the different pacing sites was calculated (delta-VA interval).
Results: The delta-VA intervals were >14 ms in all AT patients and <14 ms in all AVNRT/ORT patients, and thus, the delta-VA interval was diagnostic for AT with the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values all being 100%. When the diagnostic value of the delta-VA interval and conventional maneuvers were compared for differentiating AT from atypical AVNRT, both a delta-VA interval >14 ms and "atrial-atrial-ventricular" response after overdrive ventricular pacing during the tachycardia were diagnostic. However, the "atrial-atrial-ventricular" response criterion was available in only 52% of the patients because of poor ventriculoatrial conduction.
Conclusions: The delta-VA interval was useful for diagnosing AT irrespective of patient conditions such as ventriculoatrial conduction.