Electrophysiological Testing for the Investigation of Bradycardias

Login or register to view PDF.
Abstract

In this article we review the role of electrophysiological testing in patients presenting with bradycardia due to sinus node or atrioventricular node disease. In sinus bradycardia the role of electrophysiology studies is not established. In AV conduction disturbances, an electrophysiology study may be necessary both for the establishment of atrioventricular block as the main cause of symptoms, and for identification of the anatomic site of block that may dictate the potential need of permanent pacing.

Disclosure
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Correspondence
Dr DG Katritsis, Athens Euroclinic, 9 Ahanassiadou Street, Athens 11521, Greece. E: dkatrits@dgkatritsis.gr
Received date
07 November 2016
Accepted date
02 March 2017
Citation
Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology Review 2017;6(1):24–8.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15420/aer.2016:34:2

In patients with syncope or episodes of palpitations and heart disease, an electrophysiology study (EPS) may be of value by means of potential induction of sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias.1,2 Programmed ventricular stimulation may be useful in the context of risk stratification of ischaemic patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 30–40 %, and there has been some evidence that it might also be of predictive value in revascularised patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and LVEF ≤30 %.3,4 In patients investigated for bradycardias, either due to sinus node or atrioventricular (AV) conduction disturbances, the role of EPS is not well defined. Most of the time, the criteria used for indications of permanent pacing are symptoms and electrocardiographic findings. However, there are certain occasions on which an EPS is mandatory either for the establishment of diagnosis or for appropriate implementation of prophylactic pacing.

Sinus Bradycardia

Early studies on limited patient cohorts had suggested that corrected sinus node recovery time (c-SNRT) may be useful in predicting the development of syncope and the need of permanent pacing in patients with bradycardia. A marked prolongation of the c-SNRT and an absent or blunted response to atropine and exercise suggest impaired sinus node function.5 However, a wide range of ‘normal’ c-SNRTs has been published, and it seems that only very prolonged c-SNRTs (>800 ms) have reasonable predictive ability.6 When considering conventional upper limits, such as 500–550 ms, the sensitivity of the test in asymptomatic patients with dizziness or no symptoms who will need a pacemaker in the future is only 50–65 %.7 The sinoatrial conduction time (SACT) is an insensitive indicator, being prolonged in only 40 % of our patients with clinical findings of sinus node dysfunction.5 The ACCF/AHA/HRS 2012 Guidelines on Device-based Therapy recommend EP testing in patients with syncope of unexplained origin for the detection of clinically significant abnormalities of sinus node function (IIa-C indication for permanent pacing),8 whereas the ESC 2013 Guidelines on Pacing and Cardiac Resynchronization Pacing do not consider the value of EPS established in this setting.9

AV Conduction Disturbances

Diagnosis

The ECG appearance of first- or second-degree block may be due to junctional (His bundle) extrasystoles that are concealed (not conducted to the atria or ventricles), but render a portion of the conduction system refractory to propagation of a sinus beat. The observance of junctional premature depolarisations on the surface ECG suggests that concealed His bundle extrasystoles are responsible for the apparent A-V block, but a His-bundle recording is the only method of positive identification (see Figure 1).

Anatomic Site of Block

High-grade block can occur anywhere in the AV conduction system, and the width of the QRS complex and the configuration of conducted beats and/or escape beats are of only limited value in localising the site of block. A narrow QRS complex is most compatible with an AV nodal or intra-His problem, and a wide QRS complex is most compatible with an infra-His problem; however, a wide QRS complex certainly may occur with A-V nodal or intra-His disease in the presence of coexistent bundle branch block.10 Approximately 70 % of type II blocks (i.e. consecutive, non-conducted P waves without changes in the PR interval) are associated with bundle branch block, whereas 30 % are associated with a narrow QRS complex, and are therefore within the His bundle.11 All type II blocks are infranodal, i.e. below the AV node or N zone, but not all infranodal blocks are type II blocks.12 Although 2:1 or higher degrees of block (e.g. 3:1 and 4:1) have traditionally been classified as type II block, the site of those blocks cannot be reliably determined by the surface ECG. A 2:1 block in the context of bundle branch block does not necessarily indicate infranodal block, since in 15–20 % of patients the block is in the AV node. Thus pacing may not be required in asymptomatic patients with this pattern and an EPS may be useful (see Table 1). Symptomatic patients with type I block and a bundle branch block should also be considered for an EPS to determine the site of block. Multiple levels of A-V block spontaneously or during pacing may also coexist in the same patient, and they can produce a confusing ECG picture that is extraordinarily difficult to interpret without an EPS. Combined A-V nodal and infra-His block has been described as the mechanism in alternate 2:1 block and prolonged PR intervals.13 Finally, the presence of phase 4 block can be suspected by observing prolonged ventricular asystole and the absence of type I block in long tracings. Absence of sinus slowing is usually a criterion for type II block because a vagal surge can cause simultaneous sinus slowing and AV nodal block, which can superficially resemble type II block. Significant PR prolongation before and after block and prolonged P-P intervals during ventricular asystole are indicative of vagal block that is a benign condition, rather than paroxysmal AV block, i.e. pause-dependent phase 4 AV block which is potentially dangerous for syncope.14 A definitive diagnosis of phase 4 AV block require His bundle recordings.11

Specific loss-of-function SCN5A mutations demonstrate varied competing gating effects that reduce sodium current density and enhance slow inactivation with selective slowing of conduction velocity, in a way that may result in isolated progressive conduction system disease without provoking tachyarrhythmias.15 Initial EPS in mutation carriers with AV block revealed prolonged HV but normal A-H intervals, thus suggesting infra-Hisian block, but progressive AV block due to SCN5A mutations can be both supra- and infra-Hisian. Thus, an EPS may useful in this setting. Several different types of muscular dystrophies, such as Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, limb girdle muscular dystrophy (Erb’s muscular dystrophy), myotonic dystrophy type 1 (Steinert’s disease) and desmin-related myopathy, are also associated with progressive conduction defects. An EPS may identify patients in need of permanent pacing, and improve survival of these patients.16

Prediction of High-Grade AV Block

H-V Interval

Bifascicular block, specifically right bundle branch block (RBBB) with left-axis deviation, is the most common ECG pattern preceding complete heart block in adults.5 Early studies on patients with bifascicular or trifascicular block have reported an overall incidence of progression to complete heart block of approximately 1–2 % per year.17–20 Patients with syncope, in particular, may have a 17 % cumulative incidence of complete AV block within the next 5 years.19 The evaluation of the patient with bundle branch block or fascicular block necessarily involves testing the integrity of the remaining fascicle, and the simplest method of assessing this His–Purkinje reserve is the measurement of basal H-V intervals (normal <55 msec). In the presence of bundle branch block, with or without additional fascicular block, the H-V interval should be normal as long as conduction is unimpaired in the remaining fascicle. Most patients developing complete infra-His block have prolonged H-V intervals (>70 ms),18–20 and prolongation of the HV interval by ≥13 ms is strongly associated with AV block following transcatheter aortic valve replacement.21 Thus, analysis of H-V interval was the factor initially evaluated as a predictor of subsequent heart block. However, an H-V interval >70 ms may not independently predict development of complete heart block,19 and approximately 50 % of patients with RBBB and left anterior hemiblock, and 75 % of patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) have prolonged H-V intervals.22 This finding alone, therefore, is nonspecific as a predictor of the development of high-grade heart block, because the incidence of heart block is low, yet the presence of prolonged H-V interval is great. In our experience, approximately 70 % of patients with H-V intervals ≥100 msec, develop second- or third-degree infra-His block within the next two years. However, H-V intervals in excess of 100 msec are uncommon. Thus, such marked H-V prolongation, although highly predictive, is insensitive.

Figure 1: Pseudo-type II infra-His Block Secondary to a Concealed His Bundle Depolarisation in a Patient with Right Bundle Branch Block and Left-Axis Deviation

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Table 1: Recommendations for Electrophysiology Study in Selecting Patients for Permanent Pacing

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Figure 2: Markedly Prolonged H-V Interval in the Presence of a Normal Overall P-R Interval

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Figure 3: Prolonged P-R Interval with a Normal H-V Interval

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Figure 4: Normal H-V Interval in Left Bundle Branch Despite P-R Prolongation and Marked QRS Complex Widening

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Of note, the surface ECG may not allow accurate assessment of the H-V interval. Although a short P-R interval (i.e. ≤160 msec) makes a markedly prolonged H-V interval (i.e. ≥100 msec) unlikely, and a P-R interval of >300 msec almost always means at least some AV nodal conduction abnormality,23 intermediate values do not correlate with the H-V interval (see Figure 2). In the presence of RBBB and left anterior hemiblock or LBBB with or without left anterior hemiblock, a normal P-R interval can easily ‘conceal’ a significantly prolonged H-V interval, and a prolonged P-R interval can be the result of a prolonged A-H interval only (see Figure 3). Most patients who have LBBB have prolonged H-V intervals, regardless of the length of the accompanying P-R interval. Conversely, a long P-R interval does not automatically mean a long H-V interval (see Figure 4).

Figure 5: Effect of Procainamide on H-V Interval

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Pharmacological Challenge

The administration of pharmacological agents known to impair His– Purkinje conduction (e.g. procainamide) may unmask poor His–Purkinje system reserve. In normal persons as well as in most persons with moderately prolonged (55–80 msec) H-V intervals, procainamide typically produces a 10–20 % increase in the H-V interval.24 An increase of greater magnitude, including (a) doubling of the H-V interval, (b) a resultant H-V interval exceeding 100 msec, or (c) the precipitation of second- or third-degree infra-His block, all represent evidence of propensity for spontaneous infra-His block (see Figures 5 and 6). However, the incidence of provocation of AV block by procainamide is low, and the test may be useful in cases with borderline prolongation of the HV interval but its diagnostic yield is rather limited.25–27

Other drugs may also be used in order to provide additional information about the His-Purkinje reserve. If the conduction improves with atropine or exercise, or worsens with carotid sinus massage, the block is in the AV node. If the conduction worsens with atropine or exercise or improves with carotid sinus massage, the block is in His or bundle branches.22 The value of adenosine or ATP testing for induction of asystole due to latent sinus nodal disease AV block in patients investigated for unexplained syncope is not established, and these drugs have little or no effect on the His-Purkinje system.28,29 However, there has been evidence that induction of cardiac pauses (due to AV block or sinoatrial block >10 sec by an IV bolus of 20 mg ATP) indicates the need for DDD pacing in patients with unexplained syncope.30,31 Adenosine may also be used although its effects are not identical to those of ATP.29,32

Atrial Pacing

The use of atrial pacing to stress the His–Purkinje system may provide further information beyond that of the basal H-V interval. Most normal patients will not exhibit second- or third-degree infra-His block at any time during incremental pacing, particularly at rates less than 150 bpm.

Figure 6: Effect of Procainamide on H-V Response to Pacing

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Figure 7: Unmasking of Decreased Infra-His Conduction Reserve by Atrial Pacing

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Physiologically, this occurs because the shortening of His–Purkinje refractoriness had decreased paced cycle lengths or because A-V nodal block developed at shorter paced cycle lengths, which thus protects the His–Purkinje system, even H-V prolongation during atrial pacing at rates less than 150 bpm. Second- or third-degree block within the His–Purkinje system in the absence of a changing A-H interval at paced cycle lengths of 400 msec or greater is abnormal and suggests a high risk for A-V block (see Figure 7). In patients who develop block distal to the His bundle induced by atrial pacing at rates of 150 bpm or less, there is a 33 % progression to high-grade A-V block within the next 3 years.33 However, data on this procedure, in order to guide the decision for permanent pacing, are limited.

Table 1 presents current recommendations of learned societies for the utility of EPS in the selection of patients with AV conduction disturbances for permanent pacing. In Table 2 we have summarised all indications of EPS for diagnostic purposes in patients with apparent or suspected AV conduction abnormalities.

Table 2: Indications for Electrophysiology Study of Atrioventricular Block

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Conclusion

In sinus bradycardia the role of EPS is not established. In AV conduction disturbances, there are certain occasions in which an EPS is necessary for the appropriate diagnosis, and allows both the avoidance of unnecessary permanent pacing and the appropriate implementation of prophylactic pacing.

Clinical Perspective

  • The value of electrophysiology studies in patients with sinus bradycardia is not established. A marked prolongation of the corrected sinus node recovery time (>800 ms) is a highly predictive but insensitive sign for sick sinus syndrome.
  • In patients with atrioventricular node conduction disturbances an electrophysiology study may be necessary to define the site of block.
  • An H-V interval >70 ms is a nonspecific predictor of development of high-grade atrioventricular block. An H-V interval >100 ms is highly predictive but insensitive.
  • Adenosine triphosphate/adenosine, procainamide and atrial pacing have a rather limited diagnostic yield in patients with AV conduction disturbances.
References
  1. Doherty JU, Pembrook-Rogers D, Grogan EW, et al. Electrophysiologic evaluation and follow-up characteristics of patients with recurrent unexplained syncope and presyncope. Am J Cardiol 1985;55:703–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Morady F, Shen E, Schwartz A, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with recurrent unexplained syncope evaluated by electrophysiologic testing. J Am Coll Cardiol 1983;2:1053–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Buxton AE, Lee KL, Hafley GE, et al. Relation of ejection fraction and inducible ventricular tachycardia to mode of death in patients with coronary artery disease: an analysis of patients enrolled in the multicenter unsustained tachycardia trial. Circulation 2002;106:2466–72.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Zaman S Narayan A, Thiagalingam A, et al. Long-term arrhythmia-free survival in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and no inducible ventricular tachycardia after myocardial infarction. Circulation 2014;129:848–54.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Josephson ME. Electrophysiologic evaluation of sinus node function. In: Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology. Fifth Edition. Philadelphia, US: Wolters Kluwer, 2016; 72–85.
  6. Menozzi C, Brignole M, Alboni P, et al. The natural course of untreated sick sinus syndrome and identification of the variables predictive of unfavorable outcome. Am J Cardiol 1998;82:1205–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Gann D, Tolentino A, Samet P. Electrophysiologic evaluation of elderly patients with sinus bradycardia: a long-term follow-up study. Ann Intern Med 1979;90:24–29.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Tracy CM, Epstein AE, Darbar D, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update of the 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation 2012;126:1784-800.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G, et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: the task force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Europace 2013;15:1070–118.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Puech P, Wainwright RJ. Clinical electrophysiology of atrioventricular block. Cardiol Clin 1983;1 :209–24.
    PubMed
  11. Barold SS, Hayes DL. Second-degree atrioventricular block: a reappraisal. Mayo Clin Proc 2001;76:44–57.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Antoniadis AP, Fragakis NK, Maligkos GC, Katsaris GA. Infra Hisian block as cause of Wenckebach’s phenomenon in an asymptomatic middle-aged man. Europace 2010;12:898–902.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Feldman R, Horowitz LN, Josephson ME. Two-to-one A-V block with four-to-three A-V nodal Wenckebach, a form of spontaneous multilevel block. J Electrocardiol 1978;11 :181–4.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Lee S, Wellens HJ, Josephson ME. Paroxysmal atrioventricular block. Heart Rhythm 2009;6:1229–34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Katritsis D. Progressive cardiac conduction disease. In: Zipes DP, Jalife J. Cardiac Electrophysiology: From Cell to Bedside. Sixth edition. Elsevier; 2014: 1035–42.
    Crossref
  16. Wahbi K, Meune C, Porcher R, et al. Electrophysiological study with prophylactic pacing and survival in adults with myotonic dystrophy and conduction system disease. JAMA 2012;307: 1292–301.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Dhingra RC, Wyndham C, Amat-y-Leon F, et al. Incidence and site of atrioventricular block in patients with chronic bifascicular block. Circulation 1979;59:238–46.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Dhingra RC, Palileo E, Strasberg B, et al. Significance of the HV interval in 517 patients with chronic bifascicular block. Circulation 1981;64:1265–1271.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. McAnulty JH, Rahimtoola SH, Murphy E, et al. Natural history of “high-risk” bundle-branch block: final report of a prospective study. N Engl J Med 1982;307:137–43.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Scheinman MM, Peters RW, Suave MJ, et al. Value of the H-Q interval in patients with bundle branch block and the role of prophylactic permanent pacing. Am J Cardiol 1982;50:1316–22.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Rivard L, Schram G, Asgar A, et al. Electrocardiographic and electrophysiological predictors of atrioventricular block after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Heart Rhythm 2015;12:321–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Josephson ME. Clinical relevance of intraventricular conduction disturbances. In: Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology. Fifth Edition. Philadelphia, US: Wolters Kluwer, 2016;130–9.
  23. Josephson ME, Wellens HJ. Episodic dizziness in a 74-year old woman. Heart Rhythm 2014;11 :2329–30.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Josephson ME, Caracta AR, Ricciutti MA, et al. Electrophysiologic properties of procainamide in man. Am J Cardiol 1974;33:596–603.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Tonkin AM, Heddle WF, Tornos P. Intermittent atrioventricular block: procainamide administration as a provocative test. Aust N Z J Med 1978;8:594–602.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Twidale N, Heddle WF, Tonkin AM. Procainamide administration during electrophysiology study—utility as a provocative test for intermittent atrioventricular block. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1988;11 :1388–97.
    PubMed
  27. Gang ES, Denton TA, Oseran DS, et al. Rate-dependent effects of procainamide on His-Purkinje conduction in man. Am J Cardiol 1985;55:1525–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Brignole M, Sutton R, Menozzi C, et al. Lack of correlation between the responses to tilt testing and adenosine triphosphate test and the mechanism of spontaneous neurally mediated syncope. Eur Heart J 2006;27:2232–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Lerman BB, Belardinelli L. Cardiac electrophysiology of adenosine. Basic and clinical concepts. Circulation 1991;83:1499–509.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Brignole M, Gaggioli G, Menozzi C, et al. Adenosine-induced atrioventricular block in patients with unexplained syncope: the diagnostic value of ATP testing. Circulation 1997;96:3921–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Flammang D, Church TR, De Roy L, et al. Treatment of unexplained syncope: a multicenter, randomized trial of cardiac pacing guided by adenosine 5’-triphosphate testing. Circulation 2012;125:31–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Fragakis N, Antoniadis AP, Saviano M, et al. The use of adenosine and adenosine triphosphate testing in the diagnosis, risk stratification and management of patients with syncope: current evidence and future perspectives. Int J Cardiol 2015;183:267–73.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Dhingra RC, Wyndham C, Bauernfeind R, et al. Significance of block distal to the His bundle induced by atrial pacing in patients with chronic bifascicular block. Circulation 1979;60:1455–64.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Josephson ME. Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology. Fifth Edition. Philadelphia, US: Wolters Kluwer, 2016.