ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Behavior of Retrograde Conduction Time at Supraventricular Tachycardia Induction and its Role in Differential Diagnosis

Comportamiento del tiempo de conducción retrógrada al momento de la inducción de las taquicardias supraventriculares y su rol en el diagnóstico diferencial

Claudio Hadid^MTSAC1,2,3,4, Leonardo Celano^{MTSAC 1,2}, Darío Di Toro^{MTSAC 1,2}, Edgar Antezana-Chávez¹, Sebastián Gallino³, Gustavo Iralde⁴, Leonardo Atea⁵, Sergio Gonzalez⁶, Sebastián Maldonado⁷, Carlos LabadetMTSAC^1,2

1 Hospital General de Agudos Dr. Cosme Argerich. Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina.

2 Hospital Universitario CEMIC. Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina.

3 Sanatorio Garat. Concordia, Entre Ríos, Argentina.

4 Cardiovascular Chivilcoy. Chivilcoy, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

5 Sanatorio del Salvador. Córdoba, Argentina.

6 Instituto de Cardiología. Tucumán, Argentina.

7 Hospital Prof. Dr. Juan Garrahan. Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Address for reprints: Claudio Hadid. Pi y Margal 750, CABA. Email: claudio.hadid@gmail.com

Part of the present work’s data has already been published in: Hadid, C., Celano, L., Di Toro, D. et al. Variability of the VA interval at tachycardia induction: a simple method to differentiate orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia from atypical atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia. J Interv Card Electrophysiol (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-022-01376-w

Rev Argent Cardiol 2023;91:110-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.7775/rac.v91.i2.20611

ABSTRACT

Background: Differential diagnosis between orthodromic reentrant tachycardia (ORT) and atypical nodal reentrant tachycardia (ANRT) can be challenging. Our hypothesis was that ANRT presents more variability in retrograde conduction time at tachycardia onset than ORT.

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to assess retrograde conduction time variability at the start of tachycardia in ANRT and ORT, and postulate a new diagnostic tool to differentiate these two types of arrhythmias.

Methods: The ventriculoatrial (VA) interval of the first beats after tachycardia induction was measured until stabilization. The difference between the maximum and minimum VA interval was defined as delta VA (∆VA), and the number of beats needed for VA interval stabilization was also assessed. Atrial tachycardias were excluded.

Results: In a total of 101 patients included in the study, ORT was diagnosed in 64 patients and ANRT in 37. ∆VA interval was 0 (interquartile range [IQR] 0-5) milliseconds (ms) in ORT vs. 40 (21-55) ms in ANRT (p <0.001). The VA interval significantly stabilized earlier in ORT (1.5 [1-3] beats) than in ANRT (5 [4-7] beats) (p<0.001). A ∆VA <10 ms diagnosed ORT with 100% sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. Ventriculoatrial interval stabilization in less than 3 beats predicted ORT with good diagnostic accuracy. The results were similar considering only accessory septal pathways. Typical NRTs presented an intermediate variation.

Conclusion: Presence of ∆VA <10 ms is a simple criterion that accurately differentiates ORT from ANRT, independently of the accessory pathway localization.

Key words: Tachycardia, Supraventricular - Tachycardia, Atrioventricular Nodal Reentry - Tachycardia, Ectopic Junctional

RESUMEN

Antecedentes: el diagnóstico diferencial entre la taquicardia reentrante ortodrómica (TRO) y la taquicardia por reentrada nodal atípica (TRNa) puede ser dificultoso. Nuestra hipótesis es que las TRNa tienen más variabilidad en el tiempo de conducción retrógrada al comienzo de la taquicardia que las TRO.

Objetivos: nuestros objetivos fueron evaluar la variabilidad en el tiempo de conducción retrógrada al inicio de la taquicardia en TRNa y TRO, y proponer una nueva herramienta diagnóstica para diferenciar estas dos arritmias.

Métodos: se midió el intervalo ventrículo-auricular (VA) de los primeros latidos tras la inducción de la taquicardia, hasta su estabilización. La diferencia entre el intervalo VA máximo y el mínimo se definió como delta VA (∆VA). También contamos el número de latidos necesarios para que se estabilice el intervalo VA. Se excluyeron las taquicardias auriculares.

Resultados: se incluyeron 101 pacientes. Se diagnosticó TRO en 64 pacientes y TRNa en 37. El ∆VA fue 0 (rango intercuartílico, RIC, 0-5) milisegundos (ms) en la TRO frente a 40 (21-55) ms en la TRNa (p <0,001). El intervalo VA se estabilizó significativamente antes en la TRO (1,5 [1-3] latidos) que en la TRNa (5 [4-7] latidos; p <0,001). Un ∆VA <10 ms diagnosticó TRO con 100% de sensibilidad, especificidad y valores predictivos positivo y negativo. La estabilización del intervalo VA en menos de 3 latidos predijo TRO con buena precisión diagnóstica. Los resultados fueron similares considerando sólo vías accesorias septales. Las TRN típicas tuvieron una variación intermedia.

Conclusión: un ∆VA < 10 ms es un criterio simple, que distingue con precisión la TRO de la TRNa, independientemente de la localización de la vía accesoria.

Palabras clave: Taquicardia Supraventricular - Taquicardia por Reentrada en el Nodo Atrioventricular - Taquicardia Ectópica de Unión

Received: 09/12/2022

Accepted: 02/17/2023

INTRODUCTION

Regardless several criteria have been described, the differential diagnosis between orthodromic reentrant tachycardia (ORT) through an occult accessory pathway (AP) and atypical intranodal reentrant tachycardia (ANRT) can be challenging. ^(1-15) The usefulness of these techniques usually depends on certain factors, such as sustained tachycardia and the distance from the stimulation site to the tachycardia circuit, as well as on certain conditions, as an adequate bundle of His recording or capture, and that the tachycardia is not interrupted by stimulation maneuvers or post- stimulation interval correction due to atrioventricular (AV) nodal delay caused after entrainment from the right ventricle (RV).

Conceptually, these techniques are based on localization, size and distance of the circuit to certain structures as the His bundle, the apex, or basal portions of the RV, and have not been focused on the electrophysiological components of each circuit. ORT and ANRT use AV nodal tissue as antegrade limb of the tachycardia circuit. However, this is not the case for the retrograde limb. Although retrograde conduction runs by an AP in ORT, it travels through a slower pathway of the AV node in ANRT (both in the slow-slow as in the fast-slow forms). Therefore, retrograde conduction properties are different in ORT, typically independent of heart rate (HR), from typically decremental or dependent on HR in ANRT.

The abrupt change in HR that occurs at tachycardia onset causes changes in the conduction properties and refractoriness of the involved tissues. Our hypothesis is that this difference in retrograde conduction between ORT and ANRT can be better evidenced during tachycardia induction, in terms of greater retrograde conduction time variability in the first beats of ANRT than in those of ORT. The objectives of the study were to systematically analyze and compare retrograde conduction time variability at the start of ANRT and ORT, and find a cut-off value that constitutes a new diagnostic tool to differentiate between these two arrhythmias. Additionally, we included a few patients with ORT mediated via a decremental conduction AP and a group of patients with typical NRT (tNRT). The analysis of tNRT was not carried out for diagnostic purposes, but with the objective of performing a pathophysiological description of retrograde conduction behavior in different types of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (SVT).

METHODS

Study population

Patients with SVT referred for electrophysiological study were included in the analysis. Irregular tachycardia, preexcitation during sinus rhythm, atrial tachycardia, two coexistent mechanisms of arrythmia (e.g. ANRT with AP) and previous ablation were considered exclusion criteria. Since bundle branch block prolongs the ventriculoatrial (VA) in ORTs that use an ipsilateral AP, patients with transient bundle branch block after induction were also excluded. No patient had structural heart disease. The study was approved by the Ethics and Research Committees of the participating centers.

Electrophysiological study

After obtaining the informed consent, an electrophysiological study was performed in fasting patients under local anesthesia, without sedation. All antiarrhythmic drugs were discontinued for at least 5 half-lives before the study. Surface and intracavitary electrophysiological tracings were recorded in a digital polygraph, and blindly electronically analyzed at 200 mm/s by two electrophysiologists. In these conditions, the expected measurement margin of error of intracardiac intervals is considered to be ±5 ms at 100 mm/s and less at greater speeds (±1 ms at 400 mm/s). ⁽¹⁶⁾

The diagnosis of NRT and ORT was performed according to standard electrophysiological criteria, ^{(2,5-15,17-19)} and the ablation outcome. A fast-slow ANRT was considered when the AH interval was <180 ms and the AH/HA ratio <1 during tachycardia. ^(20-22) The criteria for a successful ablation were: no tachycardia inducibility, elimination of AP conduction in ORT and exclusion of sustained conduction via the slow pathway in ANRT. Supraventricular tachycardia was induced through programmed atrial or ventricular stimulation. Isoproterenol was administered if tachycardia was non-inducible or not sustained.

Variability of retrograde conduction time was measured to evaluate the VA intervals of the first beats after tachycardia induction, until this interval was stabilized. A stable VA interval was assumed when its duration was not modified for 3 consecutive beats and was equal to the VA interval of the established tachycardia. The VA interval was measured from the beginning of the QRS interval in a surface lead to a bipolar septal atrial electrogram (usually proximal coronary sinus). We preferred coronary sinus recordings since the ventricular electrogram is far field and low voltage, and the coronary sinus recording allows a clear identification of atrial electrogram onset and its stable position. Maximum and minimum VA interval (VAmax and VAmin) were identified and ∆VA was calculated for each type of tachycardia (∆VA=VAmax – VAmin), independently of the stable VA interval. The number of beats necessary for VA interval stabilization was also assessed.

Statistical analysis

Discrete variables were expressed as percentages and continuous variables as mean ± standard deviation or median and interquartile range (IQR 25-75) according to their distribution. The chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test was used for discrete variables and the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were calculated using the electrophysiological study diagnosis as gold standard. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for ∆VA and the number of beats needed for VA stabilization variables was calculated to differentiate between ORT and ANRT. Youden’s J statistic was considered to find the best cut-off point for these variables. ⁽²³⁾ A p value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. IBMSPSS v.26 (Armonk, NY, USA) was used to perform the analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients (73 men) with median age 46 (29-65) years were included in the study. Among them, 37 patients were diagnosed with ANRT and 64 had ORT via a classical occult fast conduction AP (Kent bundle), with septal (n=33), left lateral (n=30) or right lateral (n=1) localization. Six patients were also included with ORT via a decremental conduction AP (Coumel type) which were separately analyzed. The remaining 49 cases formed the group with tNRT.

ANRT analysis

All ANRTs had some degree of variability in the time of retrograde conduction, i.e. no ANRT exhibited a fixed VA interval. Median ∆VA was 40 (21-55) ms and the VA interval stabilized in 5 (4-7) beats (Figure 1).

Fig. 1. ANRT induction in 2 different patients. A: Induction by programmed atrial stimulation. The VA interval stabilizes in the 5th beat and ∆VA is 62 ms (maximum VA interval: 172 ms; minimum VA interval: 110 ms). The VA interval was measured from the beginning of the QRS complex in V1 to the atrial electrogram in the proximal coronary sinus. The intracavitary recordings are bundle of His and proximal (p), medial (m) and distal (d) coronary sinus (CS). B: Induction by programmed atrial stimulation. The VA interval stabilizes in the 6th beat and ∆VA is 56 ms (maximum VA interval: 275 ms; minimum VA interval: 219 ms). The VA interval was measured from the beginning of the QRS complex in V2 to the atrial electrogram in the medial coronary sinus. The intracavitary recordings were proximal (p) and distal right ventricle (RV) and proximal (p), medial (m) and distal (d) coronary sinus (CS).

ANRT: atypical nodal reentrant tachycardia; VA: ventriculoatrial

Comparison with ORT

Thirty-two (50%) ORTs displayed no variability in the VA interval (Figure 2), exhibiting a ∆VA interval of 0 (0-5) ms, significantly lower than in ANRT (p<0.001). The VA interval stabilized in 1.5 (1-3) beats, significantly before than in ANRT (p<0.001) (Table 1). These findings were similar in septal and free wall APs.

$Descripción: C:\Users\24159129\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Word\figura 2 Hadid ingles.jpg$

Fig. 2. ORT induction using a septal accessory pathway in 2 different patients. A: Induction by atrial extra stimulus over sensed rhythm. Tachycardia has a fixed VA interval from the first beat. ∆VA is 0 ms. The VA interval was measured from the beginning of the V2 complex to the atrial electrogram in the proximal coronary sinus. Intracavitary recordings are proximal (p), medial (m) and distal (d) coronary sinus (CS) and proximal (p) and distal (d) His bundle. B: Induction by programmed atrial stimulation. Tachycardia has a fixed VA interval from the first beat. ∆VA is 0 ms. The VA interval was measured from the beginning of the V2 complex to the atrial electrogram in the proximal coronary sinus. Intracavitary recordings are His bundle and proximal (p), medial (m) and distal (d) coronary sinus (CS).

ORT: Orthodromic reentrant tachycardia. VA: ventriculoatrial

Table 1. VA interval variability in ORT and ANRT

	ORT (n=64)	ANRT (n=37)
ΔVA (ms)	0 (0-5)	40 (21-55) *
Number of beats	1.5 (1-3)	5 (4-7) *
ΔVA <10 ms	64/64 (100%)	0/37 (0%) *
Beats <3	41/64 (64.1%)	2/37 (5.4%) *

* p <0.001 for all comparisons.

∆VA: Difference between maximum and minimum VA interval; Beats <3: patients with stable VA interval in <3 beats; Number of beats: necessary number of beats for VA interval stabilization; ANRT: Atypical nodal reentrant tachycardia; ORT: Orthodromic reentrant tachycardia; VA: ventriculoatrial

No ORT had ∆VA10 ms. As shown in Figure 3, ∆VA <10 ms differentiated ORT from ANRT with 100% sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV. Stabilization of the VA interval in less than 3 beats identified ORT with 64.1% sensitivity, 94.6% specificity, 95.3% PPV, 60.3% NPV and AUC of 0.895 (Table 2).

Fig. 3. The scatter diagram shows individual ∆VA in ANRT and ORT. The 10 ms line represents the cut-off value to differentiate between these two arrhythmia mechanisms.

Atypical NRT. Atypical nodal reentrant tachycardia; ORT: Orthodromic reentrant tachycardia

Table 2. Diagnostic yield of VA interval variability to differentiate ORT from ANRT

	Sensitivity		Specificity		PPV	VPN	ABC
ORT vs. ANRT
ΔVA <10 ms	100%	100%		100%		100%	1
Beats <3	64.1% (52-76%)	94.6% (87-100%)		95.3% (89‑100%)		60.3% (48-73%)	0.895 (0.836-0.954)
ORT (septal accessory pathways) vs. ANRT
ΔVA <10 ms	100%	100%		100%		100%	1
Beats <3	54-5% (38-72%)	94-6% (87-100%)		90% (77-100%)		70% (57-83%)	0.857 (0.771-0.954)

∆VA: Difference between maximum and minimum VA interval; ANRT: Atypical nodal reentrant tachycardia; AUC: Area under the ROC curve; Beats <3: patients with stable VA interval in <3 beats; NPV: Negative predictive value; ORT: Orthodromic reentrant tachycardia; PPV: Positive predictive value.

Values between parentheses represent 95% confidence interval. VA: ventriculoatrial

The comparison between ANRT and ORT via septal AP (n=33) presented similar results. A ∆VA <10 ms identified ORT with 100% sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV. Stabilization of the VA interval in less than 3 beats predicted ORT with 54.5% sensitivity, 94.6% specificity, 90% PPV, 70% NPV and AUC of 0.857 (Table 2).

Subgroup of patients with decremental conduction AP

In the six patients with decremental conduction AP, ∆VA was significantly lower (15 [5-20] ms; p=0.006) than in patients with ANRT, but the VA interval was stabilized in a similar number of beats (4 [3-7]; p=0.481). A ∆VA <20 ms identified these patients with 83.3% sensitivity, 74.2% specificity, 38.5% PPV, 95.8% NPV and AUC of 0.844. The ORTs via decremental pathways were compared with fast-slow ANRT, as they present with SVT with long RP. A ∆VA<20 ms predicted ORT mediated by decremental conduction pathways with 83.3% sensitivity, 73.3% specificity, 55.6% PPV, 91.7% NPV and AUC of 0.856.

Previous studies

Variability in the AV relation during tachycardia has been consistently associated with atrial tachycardia. ^(24,25) This can occur spontaneously or in response to stimulation aneuvers. Effectively, this criterion has been used to differentiate atrial tachycardia from NRT in which atrial activation is assumed as “associated” to ventricular activation. ^(1,5,24-26) This assumption has been considered for ORT throughout all publications on SVT.

A recent study showed changes in retrograde conduction time after fast-slow ANRT induction. ⁽²⁷⁾ The authors reported shortening of the first HA interval compared with the HA interval of the established tachycardia. We analyzed all the VA intervals since the start of tachycardia until it attained a stable duration for 3 consecutive beats and included not only fast-slow ANRT but all ANRTs, as well as ORTs. As previously mentioned, VA interval variability in this study did not exhibit a uniform pattern (incremental or decremental).

In an analysis of 411 patients with typical and atypical NRT, Taniguchi et el. reported variations in the P-QRS relation during tachycardia. ⁽²⁸⁾ The authors defined variation of the P-QRS relation during tachycardia as a change in the AH and HA intervals >20 ms, together with a change in the AH/HA ratio. This phenomenon was found in 19 % of cases with ANRT at tachycardia onset (only 3 patients) during a Wenckebach AV or 2:1 block, or at the end of spontaneous or secondary to adenosine administration tachycardia. This study did not include patients with ORT. VA interval variability at tachycardia induction had never been used as a criterion to distinguish ANRT from ORT. We analyzed the VA relation only at tachycardia induction, both in ANRT as in ORT, and found that all ANRTs had some degree of variability compared with only 50% in ORTs. ∆VA was <10 ms in

all ORTs and in none of the ANRTs.

This is an easily applicable criterion without the usual limitations of the commonly used electrophysiological maneuvers (e.g. non-sustained tachycardia, termination during entrainment attempts, loss of capture during stimulation, or His bundle inadequate recording or capture). It can be evaluated measuring the initial VA intervals of tachycardia, without additional maneuvers. The only requisite that must be fulfilled is tachycardia induction.

The study of Obeyesekere et al. also focused on tachycardia induction to differentiate ORT from ANRT. They proposed applying during induction criteria that are used after entrainment (post-stimulation interval and stimulus-atrium interval), to manage non-sustained tachycardias. ⁽²⁹⁾ However, the marked variability of the initial VA intervals in our study (VA=40 [21-55] ms in ANRT) may lead to a false diagnosis with this maneuver. Moreover, the criteria postulated by Obeyesekere is limited to tachycardias induced from the ventricle. Our findings were similar in tachycardias induced by atrial and ventricular stimulation. The fact that an adequate diagnosis was performed in a median of 5 beats since tachycardia induction, suggests the potential usefulness of VA interval variability in non-sustained SVT.

The value of ∆VA for ORT diagnosis is independent of AP localization. The usefulness of many diagnostic criteria described is lower in the presence of left lateral AP. ^(4,30-32)

Possible mechanisms

As previously mentioned, the retrograde limb of the tachycardia circuit has different properties in ORT and ANRT. The refractory period is longer in the first tachycardia beat and progressively shortens when this starts. In this scenario, retrograde conduction via a slow nodal pathway can be less uniform and show different conduction times from the one occurring via an AP with all-or-none conduction. ^(33,34)
Another possible explanation for VA interval variability in ANRT is the occult penetration of the extra stimulus that initiates the tachycardia, which results in different conduction times and degrees of refractoriness in the rest of the circuit. Occult conduction between fast and slow pathways was demonstrated in patients with dual AV nodal physiology. ^(35,36)

Lastly, a final common superior pathway could be the seat of retrograde conduction changes. ^(37,38) Since tNRT had lower VA variability than ANRT, a different behavior of the final common pathway should be assumed in these two situations.

Limitations

Although ∆VA showed excellent diagnostic accuracy, it has some limitations. Irregular tachycardias were not included to avoid the influence of cycle length or antegrade conduction changes on retrograde conduction time. The value of our criterion lies in the identification of small changes in the initial VA intervals of a regular tachycardia. Tachycardias with transient bundle branch block were also excluded. The results of the present study do not apply in these two situations.

In addition, atrial tachycardias were also excluded from the study. Since these tachycardias may have VA interval variation, they must be ruled out by means of other criteria before performing the ANRT diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Retrograde conduction time after SVT induction is significantly more variable (in terms of ∆VA and the necessary number of beats to reach VA interval stabilization) in ARNT than in ORT. A ∆VA <10 ms distinguished ORT from ANRT with 100% sensitivity and specificity. We present a new method, simple and accurate, which does not require additional maneuvers to tachycardia induction, and that should be employed to perform the differential diagnosis between ANRT and ORT, independently of AP localization.

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

(See authors' conflict of interests forms on the web/Additional material.)

Funding

None.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

©Revista Argentina de Cardiología

REFERENCES

1. Kadish AH, Morady F. The response of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia to overdrive atrial and ventricular pacing: can it help determine the tachycardia mechanism? J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 1993;4:239-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8167.1993.tb01227.x

2. Ormaetxe JM, Almendral J, Arenal A, Martínez-Alday JD, Pastor A, Villacastín JP, et al. Ventricular fusion during resetting and entrainment of orthodromic supraventricular tachycardia involving septal accessory pathways. Implications for the differential diagnosis with atrioventricular nodal reentry. Circulation 1993;88:2623-31. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.88.6.2623

3. Martínez-Alday JD, Almendral J, Arenal A, Ormaetxe JM, Pastor A, Villacastín JP, et al. Identification of concealed posteroseptal Kent pathways by comparison of ventriculoatrial intervals from apical and posterobasal right ventricular sites. Circulation 1994;89:1060-7. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.89.3.1060

4. Hirao K, Otomo K, Wang X, Beckman KJ, McClelland JH, Widman L, et al. Para-Hisian pacing. A new method for differentiating retrograde conduction over an accessory AV pathway from conduction over the AV node. Circulation 1996;94:1027-35. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.94.5.1027

5. Knight BP, Ebinger M, Oral H, Kim MH, Sticherling C, Pelosi F, et al. Diagnostic value of tachycardia features and pacing maneuvers during paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36:574-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00770-1

6. Michaud GF, Tada H, Chough S, Baker R, Wasmer K, Sticherling C, et al. Differentiation of atypical atrioventricular node re-entrant tachycardia from orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia using a septal accessory pathway by the response to ventricular pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;38:1163-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(01)01480-2

7. Reddy VY, Jongnarangsin K, Albert CM, Sabbour H, Keane. D, Mela. T, et al. Para-Hisian entrainment: a novel pacing maneuver to differentiate orthodromic atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia from atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2003;14:1321-8. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1540-8167.2003.03239.x

8. González-Torrecilla E, Arenal A, Atienza F, Osca J, García- Fernández J, Puchol A, et al. First postpacing interval after tachycardia entrainment with correction for atrioventricular node delay: a simple maneuver for differential diagnosis of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardias versus orthodromic reciprocating tachycardias. Heart Rhythm 2006;3:674-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2006.02.019

9. González-Torrecilla E, Almendral J, García-Fernández FJ, Arias MA, Arenal A, Atienza F, et al. Differences in ventriculoatrial in- tervals during entrainment and tachycardia: a simpler method for distinguishing paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia with long ventriculoatrial intervals. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2011;22:915- 21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8167.2011.02020.x

10. Segal OR, Gula LJ, Skanes AC, Krahn AD, Yee R, Klein GJ. Differential ventricular entrainment: a maneuver to differentiate AV node reentrant tachycardia from orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia. Heart Rhythm 2009;6:493–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. hrthm.2008.12.033

11. Padanilam BJ, Ahmed AS, Clark BA, Gilge JL, Patel PJ, Prystowsky EN, et al. Differentiating Atrioventricular Reentry Tachy- cardia and Atrioventricular Node Reentry Tachycardia Using Premature His Bundle Complexes. Circ. Arrhythm. Electrophysiol. 2020;13:e007796. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007796

12. Miller JM, Rosenthal ME, Gottlieb CD, Vassallo JA, Josephson ME. Usefulness of the delta HA interval to accurately distinguish atrioventricular nodal reentry from orthodromic septal bypass tract tachycardias. Am. J. Cardiol. 1991;68:1037-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(91)90492-4

13. Calvo D, Pérez D, Rubín J, García D, Ávila P, Javier García-Fernández F, et al. Delta of the local ventriculo-atrial intervals at the septal location to differentiate tachycardia using septal accessory pathways from atypical atrioventricular nodal re-entry. Europace 2018;20:1638-46. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eux368

14. Sellers TD, Gallagher JJ, Cope GD, Tonkin AM, Wallace AG. Retrograde atrial preexcitation following premature ventricular beats during reciprocating tachycardia in the Wolff Parkinson White syndrome. Eur J Cardiol 1976;4:283-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(76)90600-7

15. Katritsis DG, Josephson ME. Differential diagnosis of regular, narrow QRS tachycardias. Heart Rhythm 2015;12:1667-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.03.046

16. Josephson ME. Electrophysiologic investigation: general concepts. En: Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology. Techniques and Interpretations. Third Edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2002:19–67.

17. Benditt DG, Pritchett EL, Smith WM, Gallagher JJ. Ventriculoatrial intervals: diagnostic use in paroxysmal supraven- tricular tachycardia. Ann Intern Med 1979;91:161-6. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-91-2-161

18. Katritsis DG, Camm AJ. Atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia. Circulation 2010;122:831-40. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.936591

19. Katritsis DG, Josephson ME. Classification of electrophysiological types of atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia: a reappraisal. Europace 2013;15:1231-40. https://doi.org/10.1093/euro- pace/eut100

20. Heidbüchel H, Jackman WM. Characterization of subforms of AV nodal reentrant tachycardia. Europace 2004;6:316-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eupc.2004.03.004

21. Lockwood D, Nakagawa H, Jackman WM. Electrophysiologic characteristics of atrioventriicular nodal reentrant tachycardia: implications for reentrant circuits. In: Zipes DP, Jalife J (eds.). Cardiac Electrophysiology: From Cell to Bedside. 5th ed. Pennsylvania, PA: Saunders; 2009:615-45.

22. Gonzalez MD, Banchs JE, Moukabary T, Rivera J. Ablation of atrioventricular junctional tachycardias: atrioventricular nodal reentry, variants and focal junctional tachycardia. In: Huang SKS, Wood MA. Catheter Ablation of Cardiac Arrhythmias. 4th ed. Penn- sylvania, PA: Elsevier; 2020:316-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-52992-1.00021-1

23. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 1950;3:32–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::AID-CNCR2820030106>3.0.CO;2-3

24. Roberts-Thomson KC, Kistler PM, Kalman JM. Focal atrial tachycardia I: clinical features, diagnosis, mechanisms, and ana-tomic location. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2006;29:643-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2006.00413.x

25. Veenhuyzen GD, Quinn FR, Wilton SB, Clegg R, Mitchell LB. Diagnostic pacing maneuvers for supraventricular tachycardias: part 2. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol 2012;35:757-69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2012.03352.x

26. Maruyama M, Kobayashi Y, Miyauchi Y, Ino T, Atarashi H, Katoh T, et al. The VA relationship after differential atrial overdrive pacing: a novel tool for the diagnosis of atrial tachycardia in the electrophysiologic laboratory. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2007;18:1127-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8167.2007.00928.x

27. Tamura S, Nakajima T, Iizuka T, Hasegawa H, Kobari T, Kurabayashi M, et al. Unique electrophysiological properties of fast- slow atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia characterized by a shortening of retrograde conduction time via a slow pathway manifested during atrial induction. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2020;31:1420-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.14501

28. Taniguchi Y, Yeh SJ, Wen MS, Wang CC, Lin FC, Wu D. Variation of P-QRS relation during atrioventricular node reentry tachycardia. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;33:376-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(98)00576-2

29. Obeyesekere M, Gula LJ, Modi S, Leong-Sit P, Angaran P, Mechulan A, et al. Tachycardia induction with ventricular extrastimuli differentiates atypical atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia from orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia. Heart Rhythm 2012;9:335-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2011.10.015

30. Singh DK, Viswanathan MN, Tanel RE, et al. His overdrive pacing during supraventricular tachycardia: a novel maneuver for distinguishing atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia from atrioventricular reciprocating tachycardia. Heart Rhythm 2014;11:1327-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.04.038

31. Maruyama M, Uetake S, Miyauchi Y, Seino Y, Shimizu W. Analyses of the Mode of Termination During Diagnostic Ventricular Pacing to Differentiate the Mechanisms of Supraventricular Tachycardias. JACC Clin Electrophysiol 2017;3:1252-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2017.05.014

32. Ito H, Badhwar N, Patel AR, Hoffmayer KS, Moss JD, Pellegrini CN, et al. Use of Programmed Ventricular Extrastimulus During Supraventricular Tachycardia to Differentiate Atrioventricular Nodal Re-Entrant Tachycardia From Atrioventricular Re-Entrant Tachycardia. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2018;4:872-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2018.01.020

33. Svenson RH, Miller HC, Gallagher JJ, Wallace AG. Electrophysiological evaluation of the Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome: problems in assessing antegrade and retrograde conduction over the accessory pathway. Circulation 1975;52:552–62. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.52.4.552

34. Jackman WM, Friday KJ, Fitzgerald DM, Yeung-Lai-Wah JA, Lazzara R. Use of intracardiac recordings to determine the site of drug action in paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia. Am J Cardiol 1988;62:8L-19L. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(88)90010-0

35. Schuger CD, Steinman RT, Lehmann MH. Recovery of retrograde fast pathway excitability in the atrioventricular node reentrant circuit after concealed anterograde impulse penetration. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991;17:1129-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(91)90843-X

36. Itagaki T, Ohnishi Y, Inoue T, Yokoyama M. Linking phenomenon in dual atrioventricular nodal pathways. Jpn Circ J 2001;65:937-40. https://doi.org/10.1253/jcj.65.937

37. Miller JM, Rosenthal ME, Vassallo JA, Josephson ME. Atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia: studies on upper and lower ‘common pathways’. Circ 1987;75:930-40. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.75.5.930

38. Hadid C, Gonzalez S, Almendral J. Atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia: evidence of an upper common pathway in some patients. Heart Rhythm Case Rep 2018;4:227-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrcr.2018.02.004