Catheter Ablation of Atypical Atrioventricular Nodal Reentrant Tachycardia
Key result
Conventional slow pathway ablation for atypical AVNRT yields similar recurrence to typical AVNRT without AV block.
- P=0.167
- n=2,079
Why the study?
Does conventional slow pathway ablation have similar efficacy and safety in atypical AVNRT compared to typical AVNRT?
Population
113 patients with atypical AVNRT or coexistent atypical and typical AVNRT without other concomitant…
Comparison
Conventional slow pathway ablation vs Age- and sex-matched control patients with…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
3 months
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Similar recurrence supports considering conventional ablation for atypical AVNRT; observational data leave open randomized confirmation.
Study Design
Type
Cohort (n=2,079)
Structured PICO
Does conventional slow pathway ablation have similar efficacy and safety in atypical AVNRT compared to typical AVNRT?
P
Population
113 patients with atypical AVNRT or coexistent atypical and typical AVNRT without other concomitant arrhythmia (mean age 48.5 years, 68 female), compared to age- and sex-matched controls with typical AVNRT.
I
Intervention
Conventional slow pathway ablation
C
Comparator
Age- and sex-matched control patients with typical AVNRT undergoing conventional slow pathway ablation
O
Outcome
Recurrence of arrhythmia at 3 months and incidence of atrioventricular blockhard clinical
Main Result
Absolute Event Rate: 5.6% vs 1.8%
p-value: p=0.167
Conventional slow pathway ablation is safe and effective for atypical AVNRT, with procedural times and recurrence rates comparable to those seen in typical AVNRT.
Cite This Study
Katritsis et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Atypical atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) (n=2,079). Conventional slow pathway ablation vs. Age- and sex-matched control patients with typical AVNRT was evaluated on Arrhythmia recurrence at 3 months (p=0.167). Conventional slow pathway ablation for atypical AVNRT yielded similar 3-month recurrence rates compared to typical AVNRT (5.6% vs 1.8%, P=0.167), with no cases of atrioventricular block.