Narrow Complex Tachycardias Moritz Haager PGY-5 Objectives Develop an approach Review treatment options Dispositon decisions Perspective SVT – Broad umbrella term for any tachycardia originating above the ventricles – Variable underlying mechanisms but basically one Tx approach – Ranges from physiological pathological, and benign dangerous – Occurs in all age groups – Clinical presentation from asymptomatic shock / CHF When presented with an undifferentiated presentation with a broad DDx and variability in outcome you need an APPROACH Why should we care? Morbidity & Mortality – Patient discomfort & anxiety – Syncopal events (falls) ~15% – Risk of sudden cardiac death w/ accessory pathway driven arrhythmias – Tachycardia-mediated cardiomyopathy LV dilatation w/ impaired LV function Approach to Tachycardia Stable or unstable? – Assess ABC’s, O2, IV, monitors, crash cart to bedside – In general if unstable, give’m juice Narrow or wide QRS? Regular or irregular? Look at the P waves – Relationship to QRS – P wave axis / rate – P wave morphology(ies) What is the trigger / underlying cause? Step 1: Stable or Unstable? Not always black & white – Continuum from stable compensated decompensated shock arrest – Stability determined by big picture: Symptoms, signs, & vitals Cardio-respiratory reserve Age Co-morbidities Be prepared – Any dysrhythmia could potentially deteriorate – All therapies are potentially pro-arrhythmic Step 2: Narrow or wide? Measure widest QRS on ECG – Adults: wide = >0.12 sec (3 small boxes) – Kids <8yo: wide = >0.08 sec (2 boxes) Step 3: Regular or Irregular? Use calipers or paper – Irregularity can be subtle, esp at fast rates Generally – Irregular rhythms originate ABOVE the AV node – VT is almost never irregular Step 4: Look at the P waves P waves present? Is there a P before every QRS? What is the relationship b/w the P and the QRS? – What is the P wave rate? Ventricular rate? Is the P wave coming from the SA? – N axis: upright in II, negative in aVR Is there >1 distinct P wave morhology? Diagnostic Trick: 50 mm/s ECG Tracings Comparsion study of 8 EP’s – Given 45 ECG’s of NCT’s printed at 25 mm/s & asked to give Dx & Tx plan – 2 wks later given same ECG’s printed at 25 & 50 mm/s & asked to give Dx & Tx Results – 50 mm/s increased diagnostic accuracy from 63 to 71%, P=0.002 J Emerg Med 2002; 22: 123–126 Final Categorization Narrow Complex Tachycardias – Regular w/ P’s = sinus, a. flutter w/ constant block, Focal atrial tachycardia, AVNRT, junctional tachycardia – Irregular w/ P’s = MAT, a. flutter variable block – Regular, no P’s = AVRT, AVNRT – Irregular, no P’s = a. fib Tx w/ AV nodal blockers Rate control +/- rhythm control Wide Complex Tachycardias Step 5: Underlying Causes HIS DEBTS – H – Hypoxia – I – Ischemia / infarction – S – Sympathetic excess Hyperthyroid, CHF, pheochromocytoma, excercise – D – Drugs Anti-arrhythmics, cocaine, amphetamines, caffeine, etc – E – Electrolytes K+, Ca2+, Mg2+ – B – Bradycardias Eg. Sick sinus syndrome – T – Thyroid disease – S – Stretch Hypertrophy / dilation of atria & ventricles (CHF, valvular Dz) Preciptants vary w/ age, sex, co-morbidities, etc Clinical Presentations Typical Sx – – – – – – – – Palpitations 96% “Dizziness” 75% Dyspnea 47% Fatigue 23% Chest pain 35% Diaphoresis 17% Nausea 13% Neck pounding said to be pathogonomonic Case 27 yo M w/ palpitations & dyspnea NCT at 160 on ECG c/w PSVT Also tells you he has been “pissin’ like a racehorse” Does he have diabetes? Polyuria in PSVT Loss of AV synchronization Atrial contraction against closed AV valves Elevated atrial pressure & atrial stretch Release of atrial natriuretic peptide polyuria NB: This is trivia – absence of polyuria does NOT exclude Dx of PSVT and you should still check at least a urine for glucose Case 3 mo F w/ dyspnea & wheeze T 40.5oC, P 190, RR 60, SpO2 88% Mod resp distress on exam w/ wheezes & crackles bilaterally Is this just sinus tachycardia from her fever? Tachycardia & Fever Prospective observational study of 490 infants <1 yo – Measured HR & rectal temp in calm, quiet kids w/o evidence of serious illness – Analyzed relationship b/w HR & temp w/ multivariate linear regression Results – HR increased ~10 bpm for every 1oC rise in infants b/w 2 -12 mo Ann Emerg Med. 2004;43:699-705 Tachycardias: Mechanism 1. 2. 3. Reentry 50-80% of NCT’s Abrupt on-/off-set Do well w/ electricity Typically catecholamines, drugs, lytes, ischemia Gradual on-/off-set Not likely to respond to electricity; Tx underlying cause Interruption of repolarization by afterdepolarizations Ischemia, drugs, lytes, catecholamines Not likely to respond to electricity; Tx underlying cause E.g. Torsades IV magnesium Enhanced automaticity Triggered dysthythmias Case 2 80 yo F w/ sepsis: Is this sinus tachy? Maximal sinus tach 220 – age = maximum HR – 220 -80 = 140 – Unlikey this is just sinus tach Regular NCT: DDx P waves present: – – – – – Sinus tachycardia Atrial Flutter AVNRT AVRT Focal Atrial Tachycardia No P-waves – AVRT – AVNRT – Junctional Tachycardia Consider under PSVT as can be impossible to differentiate on ECG; Tx generally the same AVNRT vs. AVRT AV nodal reentrant tachycardia – Most common PSVT (>60%) – Dual AV nodal physiology 2 separate conduction paths in AV node – Fast pathway – Slow pathway Allow for re-entry circuit w/in AV node Atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia – accessory pathway(s) (AP) = Tracks of conducting tissue outside of AV node, connecting atria & ventricles Re-entry circuit formed by – AP & AV node (WPW) – 2 or more separate AP’s (bypass AV node completely) AVNRT “Typical” AVNRT – = 90-95% •Anterograde conduction down slow pathway •Retrograde conduction up fast pathway •If P waves seen RP < PR interval ATRIA VENTRICLES “Atypical” AVNRT is the reverse of what is pictured here AVRT 2 types of AP – “concealed” = capable of retrograde conduction only – “manifest” = allow anterograde +/retrograde conduction See “pre-excitation” on ECG Preexcitation Syndromes WPW (WolfParkinson-White) – PR <120 msec – QRS >100 msec – Delta waves in some leads LGL (Lown-GanongLevine) – PR <120 msec WPW & SVT Orthodromic SVT – Anterograde via AV & returns via accessory tract – Uses normal conduction system therefore get narrow complex tachycardia Orthodromic makes up 90-95% of WPW SVT’s WPW & SVT Antidromic SVT – Anterograde conduction from atria to ventricles via accessory path & retrograde flow through AV node – Wide complex tachycardia – Avoid AV nodal blockers Use procainamide or cardiovert (5-10% of WPW SVT) WPW & A Fib Irregular Wide complex tachycardia – May see capture & fusion beats Common (~30% of WPW pts) & potentially life-threatening – AP w/ short refractory period & anterograde conduction near 1:1 conduction VF – 0.15 – 0.39% incidence of sudden cardiac death Do NOT block AV node – Channels all impulses down AP & increases risk of VF – Use Procainamide or cardioversion Predictors of Sudden Cardiac Death in WPW Shortest pre-excited R-R interval during atrial fib <250 ms Hx of symptomatic tachycardia Multiple accessory pathways Ebstein’s anomaly* Blomström-Lundqvist et al. ACC/AHA/ESC Guidelines for Management of SVA ACC 2003; 42:1493–531 *= abnormal tricuspid valve regurgitation & RA enlargement AVNRT vs. AVRT: Can you tell them apart Helpful ECG findings – Pseudo R’ in V1 – Pseudo S in II, III, aVF specific (but not sensitive) for AVNRT – ST elevation in aVR – RP >100 ms – ST depression ≥2mm Suggest (not highly specific or sensitive) AVRT Bottom line = 12-lead lacks 100% accuracy but important to look because AVRT more serious Dx See Adam Osters talk July 22, 2004 for more detailed explanation PSVT: Acute Treatment Summary Unstable – DC cardioversion Stable – – – – – – 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Vagal maneuvers (Class I/ level A) Adenosine (Class I/ level A) CCB’s (Class I/ level A) BB’s (Class IIb/ level C) Amiodarone (Class IIb/ level C) Digoxin (Class IIb/ level C) Blomström-Lundqvist et al. ACC/AHA/ESC Guidelines for Management of SVA JACC 2003; 42:1493–531 Cardioversion Sedation – ?1 mg midaz + 100 mcg fentanyl Energy Levels – PSVT:- 50 Joules – Atrial fibrillation: 200 Joules – Atrial flutter: 25-50 Joules – Orthodromic WPW: 50 Joules – Narrow Complex VT: 50-100 Joules Adenosine Actions – Coronary vasodilator – Transient SA & AV nodal blockade Outward K+ current hyperpolarizes cells – Reflex catecholamine release & sympathetic discharge T1/2 <10 sec; Duration of action 30-40 sec Adenosine: Adverse Effects Hot flash / flushing Dizziness Chest pain / pressure Dyspnea Feeling of impending doom Pro-arrhythmia / blocks ~25% ~20-50% ~20-40% ~10-25% ~10% ~10% >75% of pts will experience side effects w/ adenosine Adenosine: Pro-arrhythmic Effects Significant literature reports – A fib, VF, Transient sinus arrest / asystole, Torsades de pointes Prospective observational ED study – 160 consecutive pts given adenosine Overall 21 (13%) pts had pro-arrhythmic s/e – Prolonged AV block (>4sec) – Atrial Fib – Non-sustained VT 11 (7%) 2 (1%) 8 (5%) All resolved spontaneously; no serious outcomes Euro J Emerg Med 2001; 8: 99-105 Pearls Adenosine CAN convert some VT, – giving it to “diagnose” SVT w/ aberrancy is misguided Wide & irregular – think WPW + A fib – NO AV nodal blockers – Amiodarone may not be ideal – Procainamide is the drug of choice Adenosine: Drug Interactions Theophylline – ↑’s dose requirement Dipyridamole – ↓’s dose requirement Carbamazepine – potentiates adenosine-induced heart block CCB’s / BB’s – Potentiate hypotension & bradycardia Adenosine Dosing DBRCT of 201 pts w/ PSVT: – Adenosine Dose – 3 mg – 6 mg – 9 mg – 12 mg Conversion Rate 35.2% 62.3% 80.2% 91.4% P<0.001 for all doses c/w placebo All administered through PIV DiMarco et al. Ann Intern Med 1990; 113: 104-110 Practical Pearl Adenosine administration – Want to get it in as fast as possible – Use 2 syringes w/ 18g needles one w/ adenosine Other w/ 10 cc NS – Put both needles into IV access port Push the adenosine w/ one hand and… …chase immediately w/ the NS w/ the other – NB: want an IV in the AC if at all possible Adenosine via Central Line Appears to have increased success rate – Observational study of 200 pts w/ PSVT induced in EP lab found 99% success rate w/ 12 mg via femoral line – Strickberger et al. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 417-422 – Randomized Cross-over study of 30 pts given adenosine via PIV or central line success rate w/ 3 mg was 77% when given via central line vs. 37% via PIV – McIntosh-Yellin et al. JACC 1993; 22:741–5 – Case reports of more severe S/E via central line (felt to be dose-related) Case 4 31 yo F w/ PSVT – Vagal maneuvers fail – 6 mg adenosine IV no response – 12 mg adenosine IV slows down briefly What now? Would you give her 18 mg of adenosine? High Dose Adenosine Background – ACLS: 6 mg, then 12 mg x2 if unsuccessful – FDA approves use up to 12 mg – Literature reports of uses up to 25 mg What about higher doses? – Randomized cross-over comparison of of 31 pts w/ AVNRT/AVRT in EP lab given 12 & 18 mg adenosine via PIV Non-significant increase in efficacy w/ 18 mg – 25/31 (81%) vs. 29/31 (94%); P = 0.103) No significant increase in adverse effects – may have been underpowered to find difference Weismueller et al. Deutsche Med Wochenschrift 2000. 125: 961-69 Calcium Channel Blockers 2nd line agents in PSVT – Verapamil 1st dose: 2.5 – 5 mg IV over 2 min 2nd dose (30 min later): 2.5 – 10 mg IV over 2 min (to max of 20 mg) NB: CONTRAINDICATED in <1yo (risk of EMD), wide QRS, or hypotensive pts, CHF, or WPW – Diltiazem 1st dose: 0.25 mg/kg IV over 2 min 2nd dose (15 min later): 0.35 mg/kg IV over 2 min followed by gtt of 5-15 mg/h Generally felt to be safer than Verapamil but same cautions apply What about Verapamil? RCT of 122 pts w/ PSVT treated w/ either adenosine or Verapamil – NS difference in conversion to NSR 86.0% (52/60) vs. 87.1% (54/62), p=NS – Adenosine worked much faster 34.2 +/- 19.5 sec vs. 414.4 +/- 191.2 sec, P < 0.0001 Cheng KA Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi 2003; 42(11): 773-6 Adenosine vs Verapamil DBRCT of 70 pts w/ PSVT DiMarco et al. Ann Intern Med 1990; 113: 104-110 Adenosine vs. Verapamil Retrospective study of 106 pts w/ PSVT treated w/ adenosine or verapamil – No sig difference in overall efficacy – Logistic regression found Adenosine worked better w/ faster HR Verapamil had better success w/ slower HR Interesting study, but hypothesis-generating at most; needs prospective, randomized investigation Euro Heart J 2004; 25: 1310–1317 Case 78 yo F presents w/ NCT Hx of PSVT – ECG looks identical Had severe side effects w/ adenosine previously & refuses repeat Does not want to be shocked either When you ask for Verapamil the nurse points out her pressure is only 88/65 What can you do? Calcium pre-Tx to prevent CCB-induced hypotension Verapamil = vasodilator + myocardial depressant – Get some decrease in BP (5-40 mm Hg) in up to 75% pts when given via IV route No RCT’s looking at Ca2+ pre-Tx 6 trials totalling 322 pts suggest pre-Tx blunts Verapamil-induced decrease in BP Ca gluconate 1g IV over 5 min appears to be a reasonable choice – Ann Pharmacother 2000; 34: 622-9. NB: No studies exist on Ca2+ pre-Tx for IV Diltiazem PSVT: Chronic Tx Pts w/ frequent episodes / severe Sx – Drugs CCB’s May be reasonable to start in ED, but need reliable F/U B-blockers Digoxin Other antirhythmics Better left to cardiology or EP Pill-in-pocket approach – Dilitiazem 120 mg PO + propranolol 80 mg PO appears to work best Rarely get hypotension or bradycardia Decreases ED visits – Catheter ablation techniques in EP lab Curative in >90% of pts – becoming 1st line Pediatric PSVT Sx may go unnoticed higher risk of M&M Higher rate of structural heart Dz – Should all have cardiac w/u Tx options are more age & lesiondependant Pediatric Sx Suggestive of SVT in Infants Symptoms – Abrupt onset of Sx – Poor feeding / Vomiting – Irritability – Diaphoresis – Pallor – May present in CHF w/ prolonged (1224h) Hx of tachycardia Signs – HR >220 – Minimal beat-beat variability – Signs of CHF Pulmonary edema Cardiomegaly Hepatomegaly Acute Tx of Peds PSVT Unstable – Ketamine 1-2 mg/kg IV for sedation, then DC cardioversion w/ 1-2 J/kg Stable – 1) Vagal maneuvers Dive reflex – ice to face – Avoid carotid massage – 2) Adenosine 0.1 mg/kg IVP; repeat 0.20-0.25 mg/kg – 3) Verapamil 0.1-0.3 mg/kg IV over 2 min Contraindicated in <1yo (risk of EMD) – 4) Amiodarone, propfenone, sotalol Paediatr Drugs 2000; 2 (3): 171-181 Chronic Tx of Peds PSVT Refer to cardiology for w/u – Order echo & holter – Very young may need admission Drug Tx – Esp young kids where recurrence may go unnoticed – Drug choice depends on age, underlying rhythym, physician preference Digoxn, BB’s, sotalol, propafenone, flecainide etc Invasive EP Tx – Catheter ablation is safe and highly effective (>90%) – Becoming Tx of choice in older kids Paediatr Drugs 2000; 2 (3): 171-181 Disposition of NCT pts Peds – Young, or hemodynamically compromised NCT’s admit for monitoring, w/u, & Tx – Older, stable cardiology referral, echo, holter Adults – – – – ALL WPW pts (not previously w/u) Pts w/ severe Sx or instability Pts failing drug Tx for NCT Pts wanting drug-free lifestyle Key Take Home Points PSVT is a heterogenous grouping of arrhythmias Unstable pts get cardioverted Adenosine is the Tx of choice for stable PSVT Avoid AV blockers in any WCT or irregular rhythym WPW has a small but definite risk of sudden cardiac death Ablation techniques are curative in >90% of pts w/ severe, or recurrent arrythmias Appendix A: Levels of Evidence Level A – (highest): derived from multiple randomized clinical trials Level B – (intermediate): data are on the basis of a limited number of randomized trials, nonrandomized studies, or observational registries; Level C – (lowest): primary basis for the recommendation is expert consensus. Appendix B: Classes of Recommendations Class I: – Conditions for which there is evidence for and/or general agreement that the procedure or treatment is useful and effective. Class II: – Conditions for which there is conflicting evidence and/or a divergence of opinion about the usefulness/efficacy of a procedure or treatment. Class IIa: The weight of evidence or opinion is in favor of the procedure or treatment. Class IIb: Usefulness/efficacy is less well established by evidence or opinion. Class III: – Conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that the procedure or treatment is not useful/effective and in some cases may be harmful.