European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) consensus document on the management of supraventricular arrhythmias, endorsed by Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and Sociedad Latinoamericana de Estimulacion Cardiaca y Electrofisiologia (SOLAECE)
- Authors
- Katritsis, Demosthenes G.; Boriani, Giuseppe; Cosio, Francisco G.; Hindricks, Gerhard; Jais, Pierre; Josephson, Mark E.; Keegan, Roberto; Kim, Young-Hoon; Knight, Bradley P.; Kuck, Karl-Heinz; Lane, Deirdre A.; Lip, Gregory Y. H.; Malmborg, Helena; Oral, Hakan; Pappone, Carlo; Themistoclakisis, Sakis; Wood, Kathryn A.; Blomstrom-Lundqvist, Carina
- Issue Date
- Apr-2018
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Keywords
- Supraventricular; Tachycardia; Arrhythmia; European heart rhythm association
- Citation
- European Heart Journal, v.39, no.16, pp 1442 - 1445
- Pages
- 4
- Indexed
- SCI
SCIE
SCOPUS
- Journal Title
- European Heart Journal
- Volume
- 39
- Number
- 16
- Start Page
- 1442
- End Page
- 1445
- URI
- https://scholarworks.korea.ac.kr/kumedicine/handle/2020.sw.kumedicine/3652
- DOI
- 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw455
- ISSN
- 0195-668X
1522-9645
- Abstract
- This is an executive summary of the full consensus document on the management of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) patients, published in Europace. The consensus document was prepared by a Task Force from the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) with representation from the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and Sociedad Latinoamericana de Estimulación Cardiaca y Electrofisiologia (SOLAECE). It summarizes current developments in the field, and provides recommendations for the management of patients with SVT based on the principles of evidence-based medicine, with focus on new advances since the last ESC guidelines.1 It does not cover atrial fibrillation (AF), which is the subject of a separate clinical guideline.
The process for evidence review has been described in the full document. Consensus statements are evidence-based and derived primarily from published data. Current systems of ranking level of evidence are becoming complicated in a way that their practical utility might be compromised. We have, therefore, opted for an easier and, perhaps, more user-friendly system of ranking that should allow physicians to easily assess current status of evidence and consequent guidance (Supplementary material online, Table S1). EHRA grading of consensus statements does not have separate definitions of Level of Evidence.
- Files in This Item
- There are no files associated with this item.
- Appears in
Collections - 2. Clinical Science > Department of Cardiology > 1. Journal Articles
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.