Author + information
- Received November 5, 1990
- Revision received March 12, 1991
- Accepted April 1, 1991
- Published online October 1, 1991.
- Edward P. Gerstenfeld, BSE,
- Alan V. Sahakian, PhD,
- Jeffrey M. Baerman, MD, FACC,
- Kristina M. Ropella, PhD and
- Steven Swiryn, MD, FACC∗
- ↵∗Address for reprints: Steven Swiryn, MD, Cardiac Electrophysiology, Room 300 Burch Hall, Evanston Hospital, 2650 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois 60201.
The ability of a catheter with an orthogonal electrode configuration to sense differences in the direction of local atrial endocardial activation was tested in 18 consecutive patients with intact retrograde conduction. In all 18, discrimination of anterograde from retrograde conduction at a single atrial site was examined; in 5 of the 18, multiple sites were examined to determine if the discriminatory ability of the catheter was site dependent. The catheter was specially designed with bipoles in the x, y and z directions. A vector was computed for each electrogram during anterograde and retrograde conduction. Electrogram amplitude along the standard bipole was also compared for anterograde and retrograde conduction.
Mean electrogram amplitude for the standard bipole was significantly different for anterograde than for retrograde conduction in 17 of 18 patients (mean ± SD 4 ± 1.9 vs. 2.7 ± 1.3 mV; p < 0.005), with complete separation of amplitude distributions in 4 patients. The electrogram vector during anterograde conduction was significantly different from that during retrograde conduction in all 18 patients (p < 0.0001), with complete separation of vector distributions in 14. In some patients with multiple site recordings, the choice of site greatly affected separation based on electrogram amplitude or vector, or both.
The orthogonal catheter can be used to sense directional differences in local endocardial activation. The catheter shows promise for discriminating anterograde from retrograde conduction and examining the direction of endocardial activation in the heart during an electrophysiologic examination.
☆ This study was supported in part by the Dee and Moody Institutional Research Fund and the Irving H. and Sylvia G. Hartman Fund, Evanston.
- Received November 5, 1990.
- Revision received March 12, 1991.
- Accepted April 1, 1991.