Key result
Sustained slow pathway conduction is more prevalent than dual AV node physiology in young patients with AVNRT and serves as a better surrogate for successful ablation (66% vs 36%, P=0.001).
Why the study?
Is sustained slow pathway conduction a better indicator of the substrate for AVNRT than dual AV node physiology in young patients undergoing ablation?
Observational (n=61)
Is sustained slow pathway conduction a better indicator of the substrate for AVNRT than dual AV node physiology in young patients undergoing ablation?
Absolute Event Rate: 66% vs 36%
p-value: p=0.001
Sustained slow pathway conduction is more common than dual AV node physiology in young patients with AVNRT, and its elimination may serve as a better surrogate endpoint for successful slow pathway ablation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sustained slow pathway conduction may serve as superior ablation endpoint in young AVNRT; leaves open prospective validation of outcome benefit.
Kannankeril et al. (2006) conducted an observational in Atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT) (n=61). Sustained slow pathway conduction (SSPC) vs. Dual atrioventricular node physiology (DAVNP) was evaluated on Loss of the marker as a surrogate for successful ablation (p=0.001). Sustained slow pathway conduction is more prevalent than dual AV node physiology in young patients with AVNRT and serves as a better surrogate for successful ablation (66% vs 36%, P=0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: