Key result
Transesophageal electrophysiology study showed no significant difference compared to intracardiac study in baseline minimum 1:1 antegrade conduction (312 vs 316 ms, P=0.5).
Why the study?
Does transesophageal electrophysiology study (TEEPS) provide comparable accessory pathway conduction measurements to intracardiac electrophysiology study (ICEPS) in pediatric patients with asymptomatic Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome?
Population
65 pediatric patients with Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome and no documented clinical supraventricular…
Comparison
Transesophageal electrophysiology study (TEEPS) vs Intracardiac electrophysiology study (ICEPS)
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
Comparable TEEPS measurements may support further evaluation versus ICEPS in asymptomatic pediatric WPW; leaves open prospective outcome validation.
Cohort (n=65)
Does transesophageal electrophysiology study (TEEPS) provide comparable accessory pathway conduction measurements to intracardiac electrophysiology study (ICEPS) in pediatric patients with asymptomatic Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome?
Absolute Event Rate: 312% vs 316%
p-value: p=0.5
TEEPS provides comparable electrophysiological measurements to ICEPS and is a safe, feasible alternative for risk stratification in asymptomatic pediatric WPW patients.
Toni et al. (2012) conducted a cohort in Asymptomatic Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome (n=65). Transesophageal electrophysiology study (TEEPS) vs. Intracardiac electrophysiology study (ICEPS) was evaluated on Baseline minimum 1:1 antegrade conduction through the accessory pathway (p=0.5). Transesophageal electrophysiology study showed no significant difference compared to intracardiac study in baseline minimum 1:1 antegrade conduction (312 vs 316 ms, P=0.5).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: