ArticleBMJ open2016
Influence of advancing age on clinical presentation, treatment efficacy and safety, and long-term outcome of pre-excitation syndromes: a retrospective cohort study of 961 patients included over a 25-year period.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Arrhythmias in Patients ≥80 Years of Age: Pathophysiology, Management, and Outcomes.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2018Review
- Observational
- Commentary: An Unusual Case of Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in a Patient with Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome: Just Because We Can, Does That Mean That We Should?The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThere are very little data on pre-excitation syndrome (PS) in the elderly. We investigated the influence of advancing age on clinical presentation, treatment and long-term outcome of PS.
settingSingle-centre retrospective study of patient files.
participantsIn all, 961 patients (72 patients ≥60 years (mean 68.5±6), 889 patients <60 years (mean 30.5±14)) referred for overt pre-excitation and indication for electrophysiological study (EPS) were followed for 5.3±5 years. Usual care included 24 h Holter monitoring, echocardiography and EPS. Patients underwent accessory pathway (AP) ablation if necessary. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Occurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) or procedure-induced adverse event.
resultsElectrophysiological data and recourse to AP ablation (43% vs 48.5%, p=0.375) did not significantly differ between the groups. Older patients more often had symptomatic forms (81% vs 63%, p=0.003), history of spontaneous AF (8% vs 3%, p=0.01) or adverse presentation (poorly tolerated arrhythmias: 18% vs 7%, p=0.0009). In multivariable analysis, patients ≥60 years had a significantly higher risk of history of AF (OR=4.2, 2.1 to 8.3, p=0.001) and poorly tolerated arrhythmias (OR=3.8, 1.8 to 8.1, p=0.001). Age ≥60 years was associated with an increased major AP ablation complication risk (10% vs 1.9%, p=0.006). During follow-up, occurrence of AF (13.9% vs 3.6%, p<0.001) and incidence of poorly tolerated tachycardia (4.2% vs 0.6%, p=0.001) were more frequent in patients ≥60 years, although frequency of ablation failure or recurrence was similar (20% vs 15.5%, p=0.52). In multivariable analysis, patients ≥60 years had a significantly higher risk of AF (OR=2.9, 1.2 to 6.8, p≤0.01).
conclusionsIn this retrospective monocentre study, patients ≥60 years referred for PS work up appeared at higher risk of AF and adverse presentation, both prior and after the work up. These results suggest that, in elderly patients, the decision for EPS and AP ablation should be discussed in light of their suspected higher risk of events and ablation complications. However, these findings should be further validated in future prospective multicentre studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.