Division of Cardiology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, 3401 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Pediatr Cardiol. 2024 Dec;45(8):1668-1675. doi: 10.1007/s00246-023-03247-1. Epub 2023 Aug 6.
Published guidelines provide recommendations for risk stratification in pediatric Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW). There are no data on provider concordance with these guidelines. We hypothesized that significant practice variation exists between pediatric cardiologists (PC) and electrophysiologists (EP).
The records of all patients, age 8 to 21 years, with a new ECG diagnosis of WPW between 1/1/2013 and 12/31/2018, from a single center, were retrospectively reviewed. Subjects were categorized on the basis of symptoms and resting ECG findings as one of the following: asymptomatic intermittent WPW, asymptomatic persistent WPW, or symptomatic WPW. The performance and results of diagnostic testing, including Holter monitor, event monitor, exercise stress test (EST), and electrophysiology study (EPS), were recorded. The primary outcome was concordance with published guidelines. A secondary outcome was documentation of a discussion of sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk.
615 patient encounters were analyzed in 231 patients with newly diagnosed WPW pattern on ECG (56% male; mean age at diagnosis 13.9 ± 2.5 years). EP were observed to have a significantly higher rate of guideline concordance than PC (95% vs. 71%, p < 0.001). There was significant practice variation between PC and EP in the documentation of a discussion of SCD risk: 96% in EP vs. 39% in PC (p < 0.001).
Significant practice variation exists in the non-invasive and invasive risk stratification of pediatric WPW, with lower concordance to published guidelines amongst PC, when compared to EP. This report highlights the need to promote awareness of current WPW guidelines in the pediatric cardiology community at large.
已发布的指南为儿科 Wolff-Parkinson-White(WPW)患者的风险分层提供了建议。目前尚无关于提供者是否遵循这些指南的相关数据。我们假设,儿科心脏病专家(PC)和电生理学家(EP)之间存在显著的实践差异。
回顾了单中心 2013 年 1 月 1 日至 2018 年 12 月 31 日期间所有年龄在 8 至 21 岁之间、心电图诊断为 WPW 的新患者的记录。根据症状和静息心电图发现,将患者分为以下几类:无症状间歇性 WPW、无症状持续性 WPW 或有症状 WPW。记录了诊断性检查(包括动态心电图监测、事件监测、运动应激试验和电生理研究)的表现和结果。主要结局是与已发布指南的一致性。次要结局是记录是否讨论了心源性猝死(SCD)风险。
在 231 名心电图新诊断为 WPW 模式的患者中,共分析了 615 例患者就诊(56%为男性;诊断时的平均年龄为 13.9±2.5 岁)。与 PC 相比,EP 更符合指南(95%比 71%,p<0.001)。PC 和 EP 在记录 SCD 风险讨论方面存在显著的实践差异:EP 为 96%,PC 为 39%(p<0.001)。
在儿科 WPW 的非侵入性和侵入性风险分层方面存在显著的实践差异,与 EP 相比,PC 与已发布指南的一致性较低。本报告强调了需要在整个儿科心脏病学领域提高对当前 WPW 指南的认识。