Cited by 197Cardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias

Conduction block in the inferior vena caval-tricuspid valve isthmus: association with outcome of radiofrequency ablation of type I atrial flutter

Open access
Schwartzman, David, Callans, David J., Gottlieb, Charles D., Dillon, Stephen M., Movsowitz, Colin, Marchlinski, Francis E.·1996·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We sought to 1) correlate conduction block in the isthmus of the right atrium between the inferior vena cava and the tricuspid annulus with the efficacy of catheter ablation of type I atrial flutter, and 2) characterize the effects of ablative lesions on the properties of isthmus conduction. BACKGROUND: There are few data on the mechanism of persistent suppression of recurrence of atrial flutter by catheter ablation. METHODS: Thirty-five patients with type I atrial flutter underwent catheter mapping and ablation. Radiofrequency lesions were applied in the isthmus. Transisthmus conduction before and after the lesions was assessed during atrial pacing in sinus rhythm from the medial and lateral margins of the isthmus at cycle lengths of 600, 400 and 300 ms and the native flutter cycle length. Isthmus conduction block was defined using multipolar recording techniques. There were three treatment groups: group 1 = radiofrequency energy applied during flutter, until termination (n = 14); group 2 = radiofrequency energy applied during atrial pacing in sinus rhythm from the proximal coronary sinus at a cycle length of 600 ms, until isthmus conduction block was observed (n = 14); and group 3 = radiofrequency energy applied until an initial flutter termination, after which further energy was applied during atrial pacing in sinus rhythm until isthmus conduction block was observed (n = 7). RESULTS: In group 1, after the initial flutter termination, isthmus conduction block was observed in 9 of the 14 patients. In each of these nine patients, flutter could not be reinitiated. In each of the remaining five patients, after the initial flutter termination, isthmus conduction was intact and atrial flutter could be reinitiated. Ultimately, successful ablation in each of these patients was also associated with isthmus conduction block. In groups 2 and 3, isthmus conduction block was achieved during radiofrequency energy application, and flutter could not subsequently be reinitiated. Before achieving conduction block, marked conduction slowing or intermittent block, or both, was observed in some patients. In some patients, isthmus conduction block was pacing rate dependent. In addition, recovery from conduction block was common in the laboratory and had a variable time course. At a mean follow-up interval of 10 months (range 1 to 21), the actuarial incidence of freedom from type I flutter was 80% (recurrence in three patients at 7 to 15 months). CONCLUSIONS: Isthmus conduction block is associated with flutter ablation success. Conduction slowing or intermittent block, or both, in the isthmus can occur before achieving persistent block. Recovery of conduction after achieving block is common. Follow-up has revealed a low rate of flutter recurrence after achieving isthmus conduction block, whether the block was achieved in conjunction with termination of flutter.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0735-1097(96)00345-2

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schwartzman, D., Callans, D. J., Gottlieb, C. D., Dillon, S. M., Movsowitz, C., & Marchlinski, F. E.
Corresponding author
Schwartzman, David
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1996-11
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
1519-1531
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1996333654
Cited by
197
References
21
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
10.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Keywords
radiofrequency catheter ablation, atrial flutter recurrence, atrial flutter mechanism, coronary sinus pacing
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Atrial Flutter, Electrocardiography, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Heart Block, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Recurrence, Tricuspid Valve, Vena Cava, Inferior, Catheter Ablation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review