Long-term follow-up of patients with P-R prolongation after catheter ablation of slow pathway for atrioventricular node re-entrant tachycardia

First-degree AV block-an entirely benign finding or a potentially curable cause of cardiac disease?

First-degree atrioventricular (AV) block is a delay within the AV conduction system and is defined as a prolongation of the PR interval beyond the upper limit of what is considered normal (generally 0.20 s). Up until recently, first-degree AV block was considered an entirely benign condition. In fact, some complain that it is a misnomer since there is only delay and no actual block in the AV conduction system (usually within the AV node). However, it has long been acknowledged that extreme forms of first-degree AV block (typically a PR interval exceeding 0.30 s) can cause symptoms due to inadequate timing of atrial and ventricular contractions, similar to the so-called pacemaker syndrome. Consequently, the current guidelines state that permanent pacemaker implantation is reasonable for first-degree AV block with symptoms similar to those of pacemaker syndrome or with hemodynamic compromise, but also stresses that there is little evidence to suggest that pacemakers improve survival in patients with isolated first-degree AV block. Recent reports suggest that it may be time to revisit the impact of first-degree AV block. Also, several findings in post hoc analyses of randomized device trials give important insights in possible treatment options. The present review aims to provide an update on the current knowledge concerning the impact of first-degree AV block and also to address the issue of pacing in patients with this condition.

Difference of clinical course after catheter ablation of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia between younger and older patients: atrial vulnerability predicts new onset of atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term procedural outcomes, the stability of atrioventricular conduction, and the new onset of atrial fibrillation (AF), after ablation of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients with AVNRT (n=109), who underwent slow-pathway ablation, were divided into two groups based on the median age of the studied patients: the younger group aged <55 years and the older group aged ≥55 years. During a mean follow-up period of 60.6 months, the rate of change in the PR interval from before ablation to follow-up was significantly greater in older patients compared with younger patients. However, there was no delayed-onset high-degree AV block during follow-up in either group. No patients in the younger group suffered from persistent AF, whereas persistent AF occurred in 5/54 (9.3%) older patients. Multivariate Cox analysis revealed that atrial vulnerability, with induction of AF during the electrophysiological study, was the only predictor of the development of AF (Hazard ratio: 13.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.62-119.2, p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Slow-pathway ablation of AVNRT is a reliable strategy even in older patients. However, physicians should consider regular long-term follow-up of older patients with atrial vulnerability, in order to assess the subsequent development of AF.