Mark H Shwayder1, Carolina A Escudero2, Susan P Etheridge1, Brynn E Dechert3, Ian H Law4, Andrew D Blaufox5, James C Perry6, Anne M Dubin7, Shubhayan Sanatani8, Kathryn K Collins9. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Stollery Children's Hospital and University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 3. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa. 5. Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Cohen Children's Medical Center of New York, New Hyde Park, New York. 6. Division of Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Diego-Rady Children's Hospital, San Diego, California. 7. Division of Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Palo Alto, California. 8. Division of Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, British Colombia Children's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 9. Division of Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado. Electronic address: kathryn.collins@childrenscolorado.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome (WPW) are at risk for sudden death. The gold standard for risk stratification in this population is the shortest pre-excited RR interval during atrial fibrillation (SPERRI). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine how closely measurements made in the electrophysiology laboratory in patients with WPW compared to SPERRI obtained during an episode of clinical pre-excited atrial fibrillation (Clinical-SPERRI). METHODS: This was a subgroup analysis of a multicenter study of children with WPW. Subjects in our study (N = 49) were included if they had Clinical-SPERRI measured in addition to 1 or more of 3 surrogate measurements: SPERRI obtained during electrophysiological study (EP-SPERRI), accessory pathway effective refractory period (APERP), or shortest pre-excited paced cycle length with 1:1 conduction (SPPCL). RESULTS: Seventy percent of electrophysiological measurements were made with patients under general anesthesia. Clinical-SPERRI moderately correlated with EP-SPERRI (r = 0.495; P = .012). However, 24% of our patients with Clinical-SPERRI ≤250 ms would have been misclassified as having a low-risk pathway based on EP-SPERRI >250 ms. Clinical-SPERRI did not correlate with APERP or SPPCL (r < 0.3; P >.1). Mean EP-SPERRI, APERP, and SPPCL all were greater than Clinical-SPERRI. CONCLUSION: Electrophysiology laboratory measurements of pathway characteristics made with patients under general anesthesia do not correlate well with Clinical-SPERRI. Of APERP, SPPCL, and EP-SPERRI, only EP-SPERRI had moderate correlation with Clinical-SPERRI. This study questions the predictive ability of invasive risk stratification with patients under general anesthesia, given that 24% of patients with high-risk Clinical-SPERRI (≤250 ms) had EP-SPERRI that may be considered low risk (>250 ms).
BACKGROUND:Children with Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome (WPW) are at risk for sudden death. The gold standard for risk stratification in this population is the shortest pre-excited RR interval during atrial fibrillation (SPERRI). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine how closely measurements made in the electrophysiology laboratory in patients with WPW compared to SPERRI obtained during an episode of clinical pre-excited atrial fibrillation (Clinical-SPERRI). METHODS: This was a subgroup analysis of a multicenter study of children with WPW. Subjects in our study (N = 49) were included if they had Clinical-SPERRI measured in addition to 1 or more of 3 surrogate measurements: SPERRI obtained during electrophysiological study (EP-SPERRI), accessory pathway effective refractory period (APERP), or shortest pre-excited paced cycle length with 1:1 conduction (SPPCL). RESULTS: Seventy percent of electrophysiological measurements were made with patients under general anesthesia. Clinical-SPERRI moderately correlated with EP-SPERRI (r = 0.495; P = .012). However, 24% of our patients with Clinical-SPERRI ≤250 ms would have been misclassified as having a low-risk pathway based on EP-SPERRI >250 ms. Clinical-SPERRI did not correlate with APERP or SPPCL (r < 0.3; P >.1). Mean EP-SPERRI, APERP, and SPPCL all were greater than Clinical-SPERRI. CONCLUSION: Electrophysiology laboratory measurements of pathway characteristics made with patients under general anesthesia do not correlate well with Clinical-SPERRI. Of APERP, SPPCL, and EP-SPERRI, only EP-SPERRI had moderate correlation with Clinical-SPERRI. This study questions the predictive ability of invasive risk stratification with patients under general anesthesia, given that 24% of patients with high-risk Clinical-SPERRI (≤250 ms) had EP-SPERRI that may be considered low risk (>250 ms).