Catheter ablation of typical atrial flutter: a randomized comparison of 2 methods for determining complete bidirectional isthmus block.

BACKGROUND Complete bidirectional isthmus conduction block (CBIB) was initially assessed by sequential detailed activation mapping at both sides of the ablation line during proximal coronary sinus and anteroinferior right atrium pacing. Mapping only the ablation line ("on-site" atrial potential analysis) was recently reported as a means of CBIB identification. The study was designed to compare these 2 techniques prospectively regarding the diagnosis of CBIB. METHODS AND RESULTS In 76 consecutive patients (mean age, 63.4+/-10.5 years), typical atrial flutter ablation was performed using either the activation mapping technique (group I) or on-site atrial potential analysis (group II). Criteria for CBIB using on-site atrial potential analysis was the recording of parallel, widely spaced double atrial potentials along the ablation line. The CBIB criterion was retrospectively searched using the alternative technique at the end of the procedure. In successful patients, the mean radiofrequency delivery duration was longer in group II (845+/-776 versus 534+/-363 s; P:=0.03). On-site, clear-cut, widely spaced double atrial potentials and activation mapping suggesting CBIB were concomitantly observed in only 47 patients (54%), and ambiguous/atypical double potentials were recorded in 31 patients (39%). CONCLUSIONS Although feasible, the on-site atrial potential analysis seemed to be inferior to the classic activation mapping technique, mainly because of the ambiguity of electrogram interpretation along the ablation line. However, when combined with the activation mapping technique, it provided additional information regarding isthmus conduction properties in some cases. Therefore, optimally, both methods should be used concomitantly.