Suppr超能文献

无症状预激综合征的经食管评估

Transesophageal evaluation of asymptomatic Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome.

作者信息

Toni Louay, Blaufox Andrew D

机构信息

Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Cohen Children's Medical Center of New York, New York, USA.

出版信息

Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2012 May;35(5):519-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2012.03339.x. Epub 2012 Feb 23.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Risk stratification for Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) by intracardiac electrophysiology study (ICEPS) carries risks related to catheterization. We describe an alternative approach by using transesophageal electrophysiology study (TEEPS).

METHODS

The pediatric electrophysiology database was reviewed for patients with WPW and no documented clinical supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) who underwent risk stratification by TEEPS from October 2005 to November 2010. Of those who underwent subsequent ICEPS, only those with data available to compare accessory pathway (AP) conduction during ICEPS and TEEPS were included.

RESULTS

Of 65 patients who underwent TEEPS, 42 were found to have an indication for ablation. The most common indication for ICEPS was inducible SVT, which was induced in 67% of patients. Of 42 patients who underwent subsequent ICEPS, 23 had sufficient data for comparison of AP conduction between ICEPS and TEEPS. There was no difference between the baseline minimum 1:1 antegrade conduction through the accessory pathway found at TEEPS versus ICEPS (312 ± 51 ms vs 316 ± 66 ms, P = 0.5). There was no significant difference between the baseline antegrade AP-effective refractory period found at TEEPS versus ICEPS (308 ± 34 ms vs 297 ± 37 ms, P = 0.07). There were no complications related to TEEPS or ICEPS.

CONCLUSION

TEEPS is a safe and feasible alternative to ICEPS for risk stratification in patients with asymptomatic WPW and should be considered before ICEPS and ablation.

摘要

背景

通过心内电生理研究(ICEPS)对预激综合征(WPW)进行危险分层存在与导管插入术相关的风险。我们描述了一种使用经食管电生理研究(TEEPS)的替代方法。

方法

回顾儿科电生理数据库,纳入2005年10月至2010年11月期间因WPW且无记录的临床室上性心动过速(SVT)而接受TEEPS危险分层的患者。在那些随后接受ICEPS的患者中,仅纳入那些在ICEPS和TEEPS期间有可用数据以比较房室旁道(AP)传导的患者。

结果

在65例行TEEPS的患者中,42例被发现有消融指征。ICEPS最常见的指征是可诱发的SVT,67%的患者诱发了该情况。在42例随后接受ICEPS的患者中,23例有足够的数据用于比较ICEPS和TEEPS之间的AP传导。TEEPS与ICEPS时通过房室旁道的基线最小1:1前向传导无差异(312±51毫秒对316±66毫秒,P = 0.5)。TEEPS与ICEPS时基线前向AP有效不应期无显著差异(308±34毫秒对297±37毫秒,P = 0.07)。没有与TEEPS或ICEPS相关的并发症。

结论

对于无症状WPW患者的危险分层,TEEPS是ICEPS的一种安全可行的替代方法,在进行ICEPS和消融之前应予以考虑。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验