Key result
In patients with asymptomatic pre-excitation, accessory-pathway ablation reduced the 5-year incidence of arrhythmic events compared to no ablation (7% vs 77%; RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02-0.33, p<0.001).
Why the study?
Does risk stratification with electrophysiological study and accessory-pathway ablation reduce arrhythmic events in patients with asymptomatic pre-excitation?
Population
1,818 patients with asymptomatic pre-excitation from 9 studies. Mean age range 32 to 50 years, median age…
Comparison
Noninvasive or invasive risk stratification and… vs No ablation / no risk stratification
Design
Systematic_review
Follow-up
8 to 96 months (observational cohorts), 5 years (RCT)
Authors
Loading...
May support ablation consideration in asymptomatic pre-excitation; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before practice change.
Systematic Review (n=1,818)
Does risk stratification with electrophysiological study and accessory-pathway ablation reduce arrhythmic events in patients with asymptomatic pre-excitation?
Relative Risk: 0.08 (95% CI 0.02–0.33)
Absolute Event Rate: 7% vs 77%
p-value: p=<0.001
Risk stratification with an electrophysiological study and prophylactic accessory-pathway ablation significantly reduces the risk of future arrhythmic events in high-risk patients with asymptomatic pre-excitation.
Al‐Khatib et al. (2015) conducted a systematic review in Asymptomatic pre-excitation (n=1,818). Risk stratification with electrophysiological study and/or accessory-pathway ablation vs. No ablation / no invasive risk stratification was evaluated on Arrhythmic events (relative risk reduction 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.33, p=<0.001). In patients with asymptomatic pre-excitation, accessory-pathway ablation reduced the 5-year incidence of arrhythmic events compared to no ablation (7% vs 77%; RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02-0.33, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: