Prediction of Successful Ablation Site of Concealed Posteroseptal Accessory Pathways by a Novel Algorithm Using Baseline Electrophysiological Parameters

Background Radiofrequency catheter ablation of concealed posteroseptal accessory pathways (APs) has been a relatively difficult task for electrophysiologists. Without a detailed mapping procedure, the left versus the right posteroseptal AP could not be distinguished. We investigated the electrophysiological characteristics of concealed posteroseptal APs and defined criteria from baseline parameters to predict the successful ablation site. Validity of the criteria was prospectively verified. Methods and Results Eighty-nine consecutive patients with a single concealed posteroseptal AP underwent successful radiofrequency catheter ablation. Of the initial 48 patients (group 1), the right posteroseptal area was first mapped. If no ideal electrogram could be obtained, or after several ineffective radiofrequency pulses, the left posteroseptal area was then mapped. Special attention was paid to the stability of the coronary sinus catheter with the most proximal electrode straddling the ostium, verified by coronary sinus venography, in all patients. Six patients (12.5%) had the earliest retrograde atrial activation at the middle electrode of the coronary sinus catheter, and successful ablation could only be achieved at the left posteroseptal area. For patients who presented with the earliest atrial activation at the proximal electrode, the presence of long RP′ tachycardia suggested a right endocardial approach, while the ΔVA (defined as the difference in the VA intervals between that recorded at the His bundle catheter and that at one of the electrode groups recording the earliest atrial activation) ≥25 ms during tachycardia suggested a left endocardial approach. The subsequent 41 patients (group 2) were randomized into two subgroups. The initial mapping site was guided by the algorithm in group 2B, while it was not in group 2A. The successful ablation site could be predicted accurately in 18 (90%) of the 20 patients in group 2B. The radiofrequency pulses, ablation time, and fluoroscopic time were markedly reduced in group 2B, mainly because of the omission of unnecessary mapping procedure in the right posteroseptal area in patients with “left atrio–left ventricular” fibers. Conclusions By the algorithm based on baseline electrophysiological parameters, the successful ablation site could be accurately predicted in a majority of patients with concealed posteroseptal APs. Radiofrequency pulses, ablation time, and fluoroscopic time were markedly reduced.