Differentiation of Atrioventricular Nodal Reentrant Tachycardia from Orthodromic Reciprocating Tachycardia by the Resetting Response to Ventricular Extrastimuli: Comparison to Response to Continuous Ventricular Pacing

Resetting Response to Differentiate SVTBackgroundThe usefulness of ventricular entrainment to differentiate AV nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) from orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia (ORT) by substracting the corrected postpacing interval (cPPI) from the tachycardia cycle length (TCL) or the ventriculoatrial interval during stimulation (SA) from that during tachycardia (VA) have been widely validated. However, some tachycardias are interrupted by pacing trains but may not be so by ventricular extrastimuli resulting in resetting.ObjectivesTo validate prospectively the diagnostic yield of cPPI‐TCL and SA‐VA measurements after resetting and to determine the proportion of AVNRT and ORT that can be entrained and/or reset from the right ventricular apex (RVA).Methods223 consecutive patients with inducible AVNRT or ORT underwent pacing trains and single extrastimulus (also double extrastimuli if singles did not reset tachycardia) at the RVA. We calculated cPPI‐TCL and SA‐VA during entrainment and resetting.ResultsEntrainment could not be achieved in 15.2% of tachycardias because of consistent tachycardia interruption by pacing; resetting was observed in 99.5%. Values of cPPI‐TCL and SA‐VA > 110 milliseconds after resetting identified AVNRT as accurately as after entrainment. Values for cPPI‐TCL/ SA‐VA were: sensitivity: 98/100%; specificity: 96/98%; positive predictive value: 98/99%; negative predictive value: 98/100%.ConclusionsDeterminations of cPPI‐TCL and SA‐VA after resetting with single or double RVA extrastimuli are useful maneuvers to differentiate AVNRT from ORT and can be used for nearly every inducible AVNRT or ORT, even if they are interrupted by ventricular trains.