Electrocardiographic Comparison of Ventricular Arrhythmias in Patients With Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy and Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Tachycardia

Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether electrocardiographic characteristics of ventricular arrhythmias distinguish patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy (ARVD/C) from those with right ventricular outflow tract tachycardia (RVOT-VT). Background Ventricular arrhythmias in RVOT-VT and ARVD/C-VT patients can share a left bundle branch block/inferior axis morphology. Methods We compared the electrocardiographic morphology of ventricular tachycardia or premature ventricular contractions with left bundle branch block/inferior axis pattern in 16 ARVD/C patients with that in 42 RVOT-VT patients. Results ARVD/C patients had a significantly longer mean QRS duration in lead I (150 +/- 31 ms vs. 123 +/- 34 ms, p = 0.006), more often exhibited a precordial transition in lead V-6 (3 of 17 [18%] vs. 0 of 42 [0%] with RVOT-VT, p = 0.005), and more often had at least 1 lead with notching (11 of 17 [65%] vs. 9 of 42 [21%], p = 0.001). The most sensitive characteristics for the detection of ARVD/C were a QRS duration in lead I of >= 120 ms (88% sensitivity, 91% negative predictive value). QRS transition at V-6 was most specific at 100% (100% positive predictive value, 77% negative predictive value). The presence of notching on any QRS complex had 79% sensitivity and 65% specificity of (55% positive predictive value, 85% negative predictive value). In multivariate analysis, QRS duration in lead I of >= 120 ms (odds ratio [OR]: 20.4, p = 0.034), earliest onset QRS in lead V-1 (OR: 17.0, p = 0.022), QRS notching (OR: 7.7, p = 0.018), and a transition of V-5 or later (OR: 7.0, p = 0.030) each predicted the presence of ARVD/C. Conclusions Several electrocardiographic criteria can help distinguish right ventricular outflow tract arrhythmias originating from ARVD/C compared with RVOT-VT patients. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:831-8) (C) 2011 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation