International Heart Journal
Online ISSN : 1349-3299
Print ISSN : 1349-2365
ISSN-L : 1349-2365
Clinical Studies
Predictors of AVNRT Recurrence After Slow Pathway Modification
A Case Control Study
Felix K. WegnerPia HabbelPiet SchuppertGerrit FrommeyerChristian EllermannPhilipp S. LangePatrick LeitzJulia KöbeKristina WasmerLars EckardtDirk G. Dechering
Author information
JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

2021 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages 72-77

Details
Abstract

Atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT) is the most common regular supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). Slow pathway modification (SPM) is the accepted first line treatment with reported success rates around 95%. Information regarding possible predictors of AVNRT recurrence is scarce.

Out of 4170 consecutive patients with SPM in our department from 1993-2018, we identified 78 patients (1.9%) receiving > 1 SPM (69% female, median age 50 years) with a recurrence of AVNRT after a successful SPM. We matched these patients for age, gender and number of radiofrequency applications during first SPM with 78 patients who received one successful SPM in our center without AVNRT recurrence. Both groups were analyzed for possible predictors of a recurrence of AVNRT during long-term follow-up. The recurrence group contained a significantly lower proportion of patients with an occurrence of junctional beats during SPM (69% versus 89%, P = 0.006). Moreover, significantly more cases of previously diagnosed atrial fibrillation/tachycardia (AF/AT; 21% versus 5%, P = 0.007) and inducible AF/AT during electrophysiology study (23% versus 6%, P = 0.006) were present in the recurrence group. While more than half of patients had a recurrence within the first year, in 20% symptoms reappeared ≥ 4 years after ablation.

In a small percentage of patients, AVNRT recurs after an initially successful ablation. Interestingly, these patients had significantly fewer junctional beats during ablation and a higher rate of other (inducible) arrhythmias. AVNRT recurrence spanned a considerable timeframe and should remain a differential diagnosis, even years after ablation.

Content from these authors
© 2021 by the International Heart Journal Association
Previous article Next article
feedback
Top