Takekuni Hayashi et al. JACEP 2016;2:27-35

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Christopher F. Liu et al. JACEP 2016;j.jacep

Advertisements

Prakash Harikrishnan et al. JACEP 2015;1:

Prakash Harikrishnan et al. JACEP 2015;1:

Lilian Mantziari et al. JACEP 2015;1:

Rintaro Hojo et al. JACEP 2017;j.jacep

Takekuni Hayashi et al. JACEP 2016;2:27-35

Adil Rajwani et al. JACEP 2015;1:

Masatoshi Yamazaki et al. JACEP 2015;1:

Sigfus Gizurarson et al. JACEP 2016;2:

Steven E. Williams et al. JACEP 2017;j.jacep

Niyada Naksuk et al. JACEP 2016;2:

Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman et al. JACEP 2015;1:

Niyada Naksuk et al. JACEP 2016;2:

Kenshi Hayashi et al. JACEP 2016;2:

Takekuni Hayashi et al. JACEP 2016;2:27-35

Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman et al. JACEP 2015;1:

S.M. Afzal Sohaib et al. JACEP 2015;1:

Tom F. Brouwer et al. JACEP 2016;2:

David S. Frankel et al. JACEP 2015;1:

Chin-Yu Lin et al. JACEP 2016;2:

Jong Sung Park et al. JACEP 2016;2:

Jacob S. Koruth et al. JACEP 2015;1:

Lilian Mantziari et al. JACEP 2015;1:

Julien Seitz et al. JACEP 2016;2:

Ryoji Nagoshi et al. JCIN 2016;9:e107-e109

Simon W. Rabkin et al. JACEP 2017;j.jacep

Samuel H. Baldinger et al. JACEP 2016;2:14-23

Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy et al. JACEP 2015;1:

Junaid A.B. Zaman et al. JACEP 2017;3:

Sigfus Gizurarson et al. JACEP 2016;2:

Junaid A.B. Zaman et al. JACEP 2017;3:

Junaid A.B. Zaman et al. JACEP 2017;j.jacep

Muhammad Shahreyar et al. JACEP 2016;j.jacep

Takekuni Hayashi et al. JACEP 2016;2:27-35

Junjie Zhang et al. JACEP 2017;3:

Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman et al. JACEP 2015;1:

Jong Sung Park et al. JACEP 2016;2:

Mitsunori Maruyama et al. JACEP 2017;3:

Mohit K. Turagam et al. JACEP 2017;3:

HeartRhythm Case Reports

Lilian Mantziari et al. JACEP 2015;1:

Leonard M. Rademakers et al. JACEP 2016;2:

Prakash Harikrishnan et al. JACEP 2015;1:

Mitsunori Maruyama et al. JACEP 2017;3:

Mitsunori Maruyama et al. JACEP 2017;3:

Eran Leshem et al. JACEP 2018;j.jacep

Faisal F. Syed et al. JACEP 2015;1:

S.M. Afzal Sohaib et al. JACEP 2015;1:

Vivek Y. Reddy et al. JACEP 2016;2:

Emilce Trucco et al. JACEP 2018;j.jacep

Faisal F. Syed et al. JACEP 2015;1:

Vittorio Calzolari et al. JACEP 2017;3:

Kenshi Hayashi et al. JACEP 2016;2:

Hampton A. Crimm et al. JACEP 2016;2:

Pseudo-conduction block at the mitral isthmus in a patient with epicardial impulse propagation through the vein of Marshall Rintaro Hojo, MD, Seiji Fukamizu,

Ayman A. Hussein et al. JACEP 2017;3:1-9

Mintu P. Turakhia et al. JACEP 2016;2:

Simon W. Rabkin et al. JACEP 2017;3:

Emilce Trucco et al. JACEP 2018;j.jacep

S.M. Afzal Sohaib et al. JACEP 2015;1:

Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman et al. JACEP 2015;1:

Bernard Lim et al. JACEP 2016;2:

Eran Leshem et al. JACEP 2018;j.jacep

Miyako Igarashi et al. JACEP 2018;4:

Miyako Igarashi et al. JACEP 2018;4:

Emilce Trucco et al. JACEP 2018;j.jacep

Valeria Calvi et al. JACEP 2017;j.jacep

Eran Leshem et al. JACEP 2017;j.jacep

Leonard M. Rademakers et al. JACEP 2016;2:

Mitsunori Maruyama et al. JACEP 2017;3:

Presentation transcript:

Takekuni Hayashi et al. JACEP 2016;2:27-35 Bidirectional Block Between CS and MB Connections (A) The activation sequences of the VOM were distal to proximal during the CS pacing. With the differential pacing site method, the conduction time from CS 3 to 4 to VOM 1 to 2 (270 ms) during the CS 3 to 4 pacing was longer than the conduction time from CS 7 to 8 to VOM 1 to 2 (255 ms) during the CS 7 to 8 pacing. (B) The activation sequences of CS were proximal to distal during VOM pacing. The conduction time from VOM 3 to 4 to CS 7 to 8 (255 ms) during VOM 3 to 4 pacing was longer than the conduction time from VOM 1 to 2 to CS 7 to 8 (245 ms) during VOM 1 to 2 pacing. These observations were evidence of complete bidirectional block of the CS-MB connections. Note: The conduction time from VOM 1 to 2 to LAA (160 ms) during VOM 1 to 2 pacing was shorter than the conduction time from VOM 3 to 4 to LAA (170 ms) during VOM 3 to 4 pacing. This observation suggested residual connections between the MB and LA. Furthermore, incomplete mitral isthmus block was demonstrated by the conduction time from CS 3 to 4 to LAA (145 ms) during the CS 3 to 4 pacing that was shorter than the conduction time from CS 7 to 8 to LAA (165 ms) during the CS 7 to 8 pacing. Abbreviations as in Figure 1. Takekuni Hayashi et al. JACEP 2016;2:27-35 American College of Cardiology Foundation