{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015696533682145193, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002616088947024199, 'mean_word_length': 5.681222707423581, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Specificity of Retrograde Conduction in Screening for Atrioventricular Nodal Reentrant Tachycardia

Baseline AV conduction properties (antegrade and retrograde) are often used to assess the presence of dual AV nodal physiology or concealed AV accessory pathways. Although retrograde conduction (RET) is assumed to be a prerequisite for AV nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT), its prevalence during baseline measurements has not been evaluated. We reviewed all cases of AVNRT referred for radiofrequency ablation to determine the prevalence of RET at baseline evaluation and after isoproterenol infusion. Results: Seventy‐three patients with AVNRT underwent full electrophysiological evaluation. Sixty‐six patients had manifest RET and inducible AVNRT during baseline atrial and ventricular stimulation. Seven patients initially demonstrated complete RET block despite antegrade evidence of dual AV nodal physiology. In 3 of these 7 patients AVNRT was inducible at baseline despite the absence of RET. In the other four patients isoproterenol infusion was required for induction of AVNRT, however only 3 of these 4 patients developed RET. One of these remaining patients had persistent VA block after isoproterenol. Conclusions: The induction of AVNRT in the absence of RET suggests that this is not an obligatory feature of this arrhythmia. Therefore, baseline AV conduction properties are unreliable in assessing the presence of AVNRT and isoproterenol infusions should be used routinely to expose RET and reentrant tachycardia.