Electrophysiologic characteristics of atria in patients without heart disease.

BACKGROUND: The significance of atrial fibrillation or tachycardia (AF) induction remains debatable. Some believe that the presence of heart disease (HD) increases the sensitivity and decreases the specificity of programmed atrial stimulation (PAS). There are few data in patients without HD. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the results of PAS in asymptomatic patients without HD and in those with documented spontaneous AF, but without HD, to know the diagnosis value of the technique. METHODS: A total of 4,900 PAS were consecutively performed. The control group (I, N=67) was defined by the absence of preexcitation syndrome, dizziness/syncope, hypertension, history of tachycardia, or other documented HD together with a normal 2D echocardiogram and 24-hour Holter monitoring. They were compared to a group (II) of 54 patients with documented paroxysmal AF and without HD. PAS used one and two extrastimuli, delivered during sinus rhythm and two drive rates (600, 400 ms). Atrial-effective refractory periods (ARP), their adaptation to cycle length, and conduction times were noted. AF induction was defined as the induction of AF lasting more than 1 minute. RESULTS: Group I patients (1.4% of 4,900) were younger than group II (51 +/- 17 vs 65 +/- 11 years, P < 0.001). A single extrastimulus never induced sustained AF in group I, but did so in 11 group II patients (20%); sustained AF was induced by two extrastimuli in 15 group I patients (22%) and in 31 group II patients (57%) (P < 0.001). There were no ARP and conduction time differences in group I patients with and without inducible AF, but there was a longer sinus cycle length in patients with inducible AF (977 +/- 164 vs 838 +/- 141 ms, P < 0.02). There were no electrophysiological differences in group II patients with and without inducible AF. No group I patient developed spontaneous AF (follow-up 4 +/- 2 years). The sensitivity of PAS with one extrastimulus was 20% and the specificity 100%; the sensitivity of PAS with two extrastimuli was 57% and the specificity 78%. CONCLUSION: Sustained AF was not induced by one extrastimulus in control patients without symptoms, nor heart disease, but sustained AF was induced by two extrastimuli in 22% of these patients. The induction of a sustained AF by two extrastimuli should be interpreted cautiously, particularly in patients with a relative sinus bradycardia. However, the sensitivity of PAS with one extrastimulus was very low and two extrastimuli were required in patients with spontaneous AF to induce the tachycardia. Other electrophysiological parameters were not useful to differentiate patients with and without inducible AF.

Significance of inducible ventricular flutter-fibrillation after myocardial infarction.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine the factors associated with the induction of ventricular flutter/fibrillation (VFl/VF)and its prognostic significance in post-myocardial infarction. METHODS: Programmed ventricular stimulation was performed after myocardial infarction (MI) for syncope (n = 232) or systematically (n = 755); 230 patients had an induced VFl/VF and were followed during 4 +/- 2 years. RESULTS: VFl/VF was induced in 49/232 patients (21%) with syncope versus 181/755 asymptomatic patients (24%) (NS) and 94/410 patients (23%) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40% versus 136/577 patients (22.5%) with LVEF >40% (NS). Cardiac mortality was 9%; LVEF was 33 +/- 15% in patients who died, 43 +/- 13% in alive patients (P < 0.004). In patients with LVEF <40%, induced VFl/VF, mortality rate was 31% in those with syncope, 10% in asymptomatic patients (P < 0.001), because of an increase of deaths by heart failure; patients with LVEF >40% with or without syncope had a low mortality (5% and 3%). After linear logistic regression, VFl/VF and LVEF were predictors of total cardiac mortality, but only LVEF <40% predicted sudden death. CONCLUSION: Syncope and the level of LVEF did not increase the incidence of VFl/VF induction after MI, but modified the cardiac mortality: induced VF increased total cardiac mortality in patients with syncope and LVEF <40%, but did not increase sudden death. In patients with LVEF >40%, induced VFl/VF has no significance neither in asymptomatic patients nor in those with syncope.

Utility of transesophageal atrial pacing in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with unexplained syncope associated or not with palpitations.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive studies are often negative in patients with syncope, normal surface ECG and without heart disease. The purpose of the study was to determine the diagnostic impact of an esophageal electrophysiological study performed during a consultation. METHODS: A total of 154 patients aged from 16 to 87 years were consecutively recruited for unexplained syncope; they had a normal ECG in sinus rhythm, no documented arrhythmia and no patent heart disease. Half of them complained of palpitations. Electrophysiologic study was performed during a consultation by transesophageal route: rate of 2nd d AV block occurrence during atrial pacing and sinus node recovery time were determined; programmed atrial stimulation using one and two atrial extrastimuli were delivered in control state and then after infusion of 0.02-1 microg/min of isoproterenol; arterial blood pressure was monitored. RESULTS: (1) Electrophysiologic study was positive in 107 patients (69%); (2) sinus node dysfunction was noted in 9 patients (6%); (3) atrioventricular conduction disturbances were noted in 2 patients (1%); (4) vasovagal reaction which associated a junctional bradycardia and a fall of arterial blood pressure and which reproduced spontaneous symptoms was provoked by isoproterenol infusion in 21 patients (14%); (5) sustained atrial fibrillation was induced in 23 patients (15%); and (6) paroxysmal junctional tachycardia was induced in 52 patients (34%). Patients with negative study were younger (44+/-21.5 years) than those with sinus node dysfunction or atrial fibrillation (71+/-9 and 63+/-14 years, respectively). The treatment was guided by these data: patients with inducible atrial fibrillation were treated by antiarrhythmic drugs and those with inducible paroxysmal junctional tachycardia by the radiofrequency ablation of reentrant circuit. Syncope disappeared in all patients but 2. CONCLUSION: Esophageal electrophysiologic study performed during a consultation was a safe, rapid and economic means to detect an arrhythmia (sinus node dysfunction or supraventricular tachycardia) in patients with dizziness/syncope and palpitations in half cases. Supraventricular tachycardia was clearly an underestimated cause of syncope in this population.

Influence of age on atrial fibrillation inducibility.

The prevalence of AF is known to increase in the elderly. Some electrophysiological changes were reported in these patients, but the effects of age on AF inducibility and other electrophysiological signs associated with atrial vulnerability are unknown. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects of age on atrial vulnerability and AF induction. The study consisted of 734 patients (age 16-85 years, mean 61 +/- 15 years) without spontaneous AF who were admitted for electrophysiological study. Study was indicated for dizziness or ventricular tachyarrhythmia. Programmed atrial stimulation was systematically performed. One and two extrastimuli were delivered in sinus rhythm and atrial driven rhythms (600, 400 ms). Univariate and multivariate analysis of several clinical and electrophysiological data were performed. AF inducibility, defined as the induction of an AF lasting > 1 minute, was paradoxically and significantly decreased in elderly (> 70 years) patients compared to younger patients (< 70 years) (P < 0.01). AF inducibility was present in 40% of 62 patients < 40 years, 39% of 99 patients age 40-50 years, 37% of 130 patients age 50-60 years, 38% of 222 patients age 60-70 years, and only 28% of 221 patients > 70 years. There was no significant correlation with the sex, the presence of dizziness, the presence or not of an underlying heart disease, the left ventricular ejection fraction, and the presence of salvos of atrial premature beats on 24-hour Holter monitoring. There was a significant correlation with a longer atrial effective refractory period in the elderly (226 +/- 41 ms) than in younger patients (208 +/- 31 ms) (P < 0.001). Other electrophysiological parameters of atrial vulnerability did not change significantly. Increased atrial refractory period and age >70 years were independent factors of decreased AF inducibility. Programmed atrial stimulation should be interpreted cautiously before the age of 70 years. AF induction is facilitated by the presence of a short atrial refractory period in these patients. Surprisingly, AF inducibility decreases in patients > 70 years because their atrial refractory period increases. Therefore, increased AF prevalence in these patients should be explained by nonelectrophysiological causes.