3.8 Article

Electrocardiographic Criteria for Differentiating Left from Right Idiopathic Outflow Tract Ventricular Arrhythmias

期刊

ARRHYTHMIA & ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY REVIEW
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 10-16

出版社

RADCLIFFE CARDIOLOGY
DOI: 10.15420/aer.2020.10

关键词

Idiopathic ventricular arrhythmia; ventricular outflow tract; catheter ablation; electrocardiogram

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Idiopathic ventricular arrhythmias are ventricular tachycardias or premature ventricular contractions that are presumably not related to myocardial scar or disorders of ion channels. Ventricular arrhythmias without underlying structural heart disease often arise from the ventricular outflow tracts, with the right ventricular outflow tract being the most common site of origin. Radiofrequency catheter ablation is an effective and safe treatment strategy for these focal ventricular arrhythmias.
Idiopathic ventricular arrhythmias are ventricular tachycardias or premature ventricular contractions presumably not related to myocardial scar or disorders of ion channels. Of the ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) without underlying structural heart disease, those arising from the ventricular outflow tracts (OTs) are the most common. The right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) is the most common site of origin for OT-VAs, but these arrhythmias can, less frequently, originate from the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT). OT-VAs are focal and have characteristic ECG features based on their anatomical origin. Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) is an effective and safe treatment strategy for OT-VAs. Prediction of the OT-VA origin according to ECG features is an essential part of the preprocedural planning for RFCA procedures. Several ECG criteria have been proposed for differentiating OT site of origin. Unfortunately, the ECG features of RVOT-VAs and LVOT-VAs are similar and could possibly lead to misdiagnosis. The authors review the ECG criteria used in clinical practice to differentiate RVOT-VAs from LVOT-VAs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据