Management of SVT 2015
Management of SVT 2015
*Writing committee members are required to recuse themselves from voting on sections to which their specific relationships with
industry and other entities may apply; see Appendix 1 for recusal information.
ACC/AHA Representative.
HRS Representative.
ACC/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures Liaison.
ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines Liaison.
Former Task Force member; current member during this writing effort.
This document was approved by the American College of Cardiology Board of Trustees and Executive Committee, the American Heart
Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee, and the Heart Rhythm Society Board of Trustees in August 2015 and the
American Heart Association Executive Committee in September 2015.
The online-only Author Comprehensive Relationships Data Supplement is available with this article at
http://circ.ahajournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000310/-/DC1.
The online-only Data Supplement files are available with this article at
http://circ.ahajournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000310/-/DC2.
Page 1 of 74
Page 2 of 74
Table of Contents
Preamble.................................................................................................................................................................. 5
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
1.1. Methodology and Evidence Review............................................................................................................. 8
1.2. Organization of the GWC ............................................................................................................................ 9
1.3. Document Review and Approval ................................................................................................................. 9
1.4. Scope of the Guideline ................................................................................................................................. 9
2. General Principles ............................................................................................................................................. 10
2.1. Mechanisms and Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 10
2.2. Epidemiology, Demographics, and Public Health Impact ......................................................................... 12
2.3. Evaluation of the Patient With Suspected or Documented SVT ................................................................ 12
2.3.1. Clinical Presentation and Differential Diagnosis on the Basis of Symptoms ..................................... 12
2.3.2. Evaluation of the ECG ........................................................................................................................ 13
2.4. Principles of Medical Therapy ................................................................................................................... 15
2.4.1. Acute Treatment: Recommendations .................................................................................................. 15
2.4.2. Ongoing Management: Recommendations ......................................................................................... 16
2.5. Basic Principles of Electrophysiological Study, Mapping, and Ablation .................................................. 18
3. Sinus Tachyarrhythmias .................................................................................................................................... 19
3.1. Physiological Sinus Tachycardia................................................................................................................ 19
3.2. Inappropriate Sinus Tachycardia ................................................................................................................ 20
3.2.1. Acute Treatment .................................................................................................................................. 20
3.2.2. Ongoing Management: Recommendations ......................................................................................... 20
4. Nonsinus Focal Atrial Tachycardia and MAT .................................................................................................. 21
4.1. Focal AT..................................................................................................................................................... 21
4.1.1. Acute Treatment: Recommendations .................................................................................................. 22
4.1.2. Ongoing Management: Recommendations ......................................................................................... 23
4.2. Multifocal Atrial Tachycardia .................................................................................................................... 24
4.2.1. Acute Treatment: Recommendation ................................................................................................... 24
4.2.2. Ongoing Management: Recommendations ......................................................................................... 24
5. Atrioventricular Nodal Reentrant Tachycardia ................................................................................................. 25
5.1. Acute Treatment: Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 25
5.2. Ongoing Management: Recommendations ................................................................................................ 26
6. Manifest and Concealed Accessory Pathways .................................................................................................. 28
6.1. Management of Patients With Symptomatic Manifest or Concealed Accessory Pathways....................... 29
6.1.1. Acute Treatment: Recommendations .................................................................................................. 29
6.1.2. Ongoing Management: Recommendations ......................................................................................... 32
6.2. Management of Asymptomatic Pre-Excitation .......................................................................................... 33
6.2.1. PICOTS Critical Questions ................................................................................................................. 33
6.2.2. Asymptomatic Patients With Pre-Excitation: Recommendations ....................................................... 34
6.3. Risk Stratification of Symptomatic Patients With Manifest Accessory Pathways: Recommendations ..... 34
7. Atrial Flutter ...................................................................................................................................................... 34
7.1. Cavotricuspid Isthmus-Dependent Atrial Flutter ....................................................................................... 34
7.2. NonIsthmus-Dependent Atrial Flutters .................................................................................................... 35
7.3. Acute Treatment: Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 35
7.4. Ongoing Management: Recommendations ................................................................................................ 36
8. Junctional Tachycardia...................................................................................................................................... 37
8.1. Acute Treatment: Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 38
8.2. Ongoing Management: Recommendations ................................................................................................ 38
9. Special Populations ........................................................................................................................................... 39
9.1. Pediatrics .................................................................................................................................................... 39
9.2. Patients With Adult Congenital Heart Disease .......................................................................................... 41
Page 3 of 74
Page 4 of 74
Preamble
Since 1980, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) have
translated scientific evidence into clinical practice guidelines with recommendations to improve cardiovascular
health. These guidelines, based on systematic methods to evaluate and classify evidence, provide a cornerstone
of quality cardiovascular care.
In response to reports from the Institute of Medicine (1, 2) and a mandate to evaluate new knowledge
and maintain relevance at the point of care, the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines (Task
Force) modified its methodology (3-5). The relationships between guidelines, data standards, appropriate use
criteria, and performance measures are addressed elsewhere (4).
Intended Use
Practice guidelines provide recommendations applicable to patients with or at risk of developing cardiovascular
disease. The focus is on medical practice in the United States, but guidelines developed in collaboration with
other organizations may have a broader target. Although guidelines may inform regulatory or payer decisions,
they are intended to improve quality of care in the interest of patients.
Evidence Review
Guideline Writing Committee (GWC) members review the literature; weigh the quality of evidence for or
against particular tests, treatments, or procedures; and estimate expected health outcomes. In developing
recommendations, the GWC uses evidence-based methodologies that are based on all available data (4-6).
Literature searches focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but also include registries, nonrandomized
comparative and descriptive studies, case series, cohort studies, systematic reviews, and expert opinion. Only
selected references are cited.
The Task Force recognizes the need for objective, independent Evidence Review Committees (ERCs)
that include methodologists, epidemiologists, clinicians, and biostatisticians who systematically survey, abstract,
and assess the evidence to address key clinical questions posed in the PICOTS format (P=population,
I=intervention, C=comparator, O=outcome, T=timing, S=setting) (4, 5). Practical considerations, including time
and resource constraints, limit the ERCs to evidence that is relevant to key clinical questions and lends itself to
systematic review and analysis that could affect the strength of corresponding recommendations.
Recommendations developed by the GWC on the basis of the systematic review are marked SR.
Clinical Implementation
Management in accordance with guideline recommendations is effective only when followed. Adherence to
recommendations can be enhanced by shared decision making between clinicians and patients, with patient
engagement in selecting interventions based on individual values, preferences, and associated conditions and
comorbidities. Consequently, circumstances may arise in which deviations from these guidelines are
appropriate.
Page 6 of 74
Policy
The recommendations in this guideline represent the official policy of the ACC and AHA until superseded by
published addenda, statements of clarification, focused updates, or revised full-text guidelines. To ensure that
guidelines remain current, new data are reviewed biannually to determine whether recommendations should be
modified. In general, full revisions are posted in 5-year cycles (3, 5).
The reader is encouraged to consult the full-text guideline (9) for additional guidance and details with
regard to SVT because the executive summary contains limited information.
Page 7 of 74
Table 1. Applying Class of Recommendation and Level of Evidence to Clinical Strategies, Interventions,
Treatments, or Diagnostic Testing in Patient Care*
1. Introduction
1.1. Methodology and Evidence Review
The recommendations listed in this guideline are, whenever possible, evidence based. An extensive evidence
review was conducted in April 2014 that included literature published through September 2014. Other selected
references published through May 2015 were incorporated by the GWC. Literature included was derived from
research involving human subjects, published in English, and indexed in MEDLINE (through PubMed),
Page 8 of 74
EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases
relevant to this guideline. The relevant search terms and data are included in evidence tables in the Online Data
Supplement http://jaccjacc.acc.org/Clinical_Document/2015_SVT_Evidence_Tables_Data_Supplement.docx.
Additionally, the GWC reviewed documents related to supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) previously published
by the ACC, AHA, and Heart Rhythm Society (HRS). References selected and published in this document are
representative and not all-inclusive.
An independent ERC was commissioned to perform a systematic review of key clinical questions, the
results of which were considered by the GWC for incorporation into this guideline. The systematic review report
on the management of asymptomatic patients with Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) syndrome is published in
conjunction with this guideline (10).
Page 9 of 74
2. General Principles
2.1. Mechanisms and Definitions
For the purposes of this guideline, SVT is defined as per Table 2, which provides definitions and the
mechanism(s) of each type of SVT. The term SVT does not generally include AF, and this document does not
discuss the management of AF.
Table 2. Relevant Terms and Definitions
Arrhythmia/Term
Supraventricular
tachycardia (SVT)
Paroxysmal
supraventricular
tachycardia (PSVT)
Atrial fibrillation (AF)
Sinus tachycardia
Physiologic sinus
tachycardia
Inappropriate sinus
tachycardia
Atrial tachycardia (AT)
Focal AT
Multifocal atrial
tachycardia (MAT)
Atrial flutter
Cavotricuspid isthmus
dependent atrial flutter:
typical
Cavotricuspid isthmus
dependent atrial flutter:
reverse typical
Atypical or non
cavotricuspid isthmus
dependent atrial flutter
Definition
An umbrella term used to describe tachycardias (atrial and/or ventricular rates in excess of
100 bpm at rest), the mechanism of which involves tissue from the His bundle or above.
These SVTs include inappropriate sinus tachycardia, AT (including focal and multifocal
AT), macroreentrant AT (including typical atrial flutter), junctional tachycardia, AVNRT,
and various forms of accessory pathway-mediated reentrant tachycardias. In this
guideline, the term does not include AF.
A clinical syndrome characterized by the presence of a regular and rapid tachycardia of
abrupt onset and termination. These features are characteristic of AVNRT or AVRT, and,
less frequently, AT. PSVT represents a subset of SVT.
A supraventricular arrhythmia with uncoordinated atrial activation and, consequently,
ineffective atrial contraction. ECG characteristics include: 1) irregular atrial activity, 2)
absence of distinct P waves, and 3) irregular R-R intervals (when atrioventricular
conduction is present). AF is not addressed in this document.
Rhythm arising from the sinus node in which the rate of impulses exceeds 100 bpm.
Appropriate increased sinus rate in response to exercise and other situations that increase
sympathetic tone.
Sinus heart rate >100 bpm at rest, with a mean 24-h heart rate >90 bpm not due to
appropriate physiological responses or primary causes such as hyperthyroidism or anemia.
An SVT arising from a localized atrial site, characterized by regular, organized atrial
activity with discrete P waves and typically an isoelectric segment between P waves. At
times, irregularity is seen, especially at onset (warm-up) and termination (warmdown). Atrial mapping reveals a focal point of origin.
A specific type of focal AT that is due to microreentry arising from the sinus node
complex, characterized by abrupt onset and termination, resulting in a P-wave
morphology that is indistinguishable from sinus rhythm.
An irregular SVT characterized by 3 distinct P-wave morphologies and/or patterns of
atrial activation at different rates. The rhythm is always irregular.
Macroreentrant AT propagating around the tricuspid annulus, proceeding superiorly along
the atrial septum, inferiorly along the right atrial wall, and through the cavotricuspid
isthmus between the tricuspid valve annulus and the Eustachian valve and ridge. This
activation sequence produces predominantly negative "sawtooth" flutter waves on the
ECG in leads 2, 3, and aVF and a late positive deflection in V1. The atrial rate can be
slower than the typical 300 bpm (cycle length 200 ms) in the presence of antiarrhythmic
drugs or scarring. It is also known as "typical atrial flutter" or "cavotricuspid isthmus
dependent atrial flutter" or "counterclockwise atrial flutter."
Macroreentrant AT that propagates around in the direction reverse that of typical atrial
flutter. Flutter waves typically appear positive in the inferior leads and negative in V1.
This type of atrial flutter is also referred to as "reverse typical" atrial flutter or "clockwise
typical atrial flutter.
Macroreentrant ATs that do not involve the cavotricuspid isthmus. A variety of reentrant
circuits may include reentry around the mitral valve annulus or scar tissue within the left
or right atrium. A variety of terms have been applied to these arrhythmias according to the
reentry circuit location, including particular forms, such as "LA flutter" and LA
Page 10 of 74
Junctional tachycardia
Atrioventricular nodal
reentrant tachycardia
(AVNRT)
Typical AVNRT
Atypical AVNRT
Accessory pathway
Manifest accessory
pathways
Concealed accessory
pathway
Pre-excitation pattern
Antidromic AVRT
Permanent form of
junctional reciprocating
tachycardia (PJRT)
AF with ventricular pre-excitation caused by conduction over 1 accessory pathway(s).
Pre-excited AF
AF indicates atrial fibrillation; AT, atrial tachycardia; AV, atrioventricular; AVNRT, atrioventricular nodal reentrant
tachycardia; AVRT, atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia; bpm, beats per minute; ECG, electrocardiogram/
electrocardiographic; LA, left atrial; MAT, multifocal atrial tachycardia; PJRT, permanent form of junctional reciprocating
Page 11 of 74
Page 12 of 74
symptoms of shirt flapping or neck pounding (19, 24) that may be related to pulsatile reversed flow when
the atria contract against a closed tricuspid valve (cannon a-waves).
True syncope is infrequent with SVT, but complaints of light-headedness are common. In patients with
WPW syndrome, syncope should be taken seriously but is not necessarily associated with increased risk of SCD
(25). The rate of AVRT is faster when AVRT is induced during exercise (26), yet the rate alone does not explain
symptoms of near-syncope. Elderly patients with AVNRT are more prone to syncope or near-syncope than are
younger patients, but the tachycardia rate is generally slower in the elderly (27, 28).
In a study on the relationship of SVT with driving, 57% of patients with SVT experienced an episode
while driving, and 24% of these considered it to be an obstacle to driving (29). This sentiment was most
common in patients who had experienced syncope or near-syncope. Among patients who experienced SVT
while driving, 77% felt fatigue, 50% had symptoms of near-syncope, and 14% experienced syncope. Women
had more symptoms in each category.
sinus rhythm. In sinus node re-entry tachycardia, a form of focal AT, the P-wave morphology is identical to the
P wave in sinus rhythm.
Page 14 of 74
COR
LOE
B-R
B-R
B-NR
B-NR
IIa
B-R
IIa
C-LD
Recommendations
1. Vagal maneuvers are recommended for acute treatment in patients with regular
SVT (33-35).
2. Adenosine is recommended for acute treatment in patients with regular SVT (34,
36-43).
3. Synchronized cardioversion is recommended for acute treatment in patients with
hemodynamically unstable SVT when vagal maneuvers or adenosine are ineffective
or not feasible (44).
4. Synchronized cardioversion is recommended for acute treatment in patients with
hemodynamically stable SVT when pharmacological therapy is ineffective or
contraindicated (36, 45).
1. Intravenous diltiazem or verapamil can be effective for acute treatment in
patients with hemodynamically stable SVT (36, 39, 42, 46).
2. Intravenous beta blockers are reasonable for acute treatment in patients with
hemodynamically stable SVT (47).
Page 15 of 74
Regular SVT
Vagal maneuvers
and/or IV adenosine
(Class I)
If ineffective
or not feasible
Hemodynamically
stable
Yes
IV beta blockers,
IV diltiazem, or
IV verapamil
(Class IIa)
No
Synchronized
cardioversion*
(Class I)
the context of frequency and duration of the SVT, along with clinical manifestations, such as symptoms or
adverse consequences (e.g., development of cardiomyopathy).
COR
LOE
B-R
B-NR
C-LD
IIa
B-R
IIb
B-R
IIb
B-R
IIb
C-LD
IIb
C-LD
Recommendations
1. Oral beta blockers, diltiazem, or verapamil is useful for ongoing management in
patients with symptomatic SVT who do not have ventricular pre-excitation during
sinus rhythm (48-50).
2. Electrophysiological (EP) study with the option of ablation is useful for the
diagnosis and potential treatment of SVT (51-58).
3. Patients with SVT should be educated on how to perform vagal maneuvers for
ongoing management of SVT (33).
1. Flecainide or propafenone is reasonable for ongoing management in patients
without structural heart disease or ischemic heart disease who have symptomatic
SVT and are not candidates for, or prefer not to undergo, catheter ablation (48, 5965).
1. Sotalol may be reasonable for ongoing management in patients with symptomatic
SVT who are not candidates for, or prefer not to undergo, catheter ablation (66).
2. Dofetilide may be reasonable for ongoing management in patients with
symptomatic SVT who are not candidates for, or prefer not to undergo, catheter
ablation and in whom beta blockers, diltiazem, flecainide, propafenone, or verapamil
are ineffective or contraindicated (59).
3. Oral amiodarone may be considered for ongoing management in patients with
symptomatic SVT who are not candidates for, or prefer not to undergo, catheter
ablation and in whom beta blockers, diltiazem, dofetilide, flecainide, propafenone,
sotalol, or verapamil are ineffective or contraindicated (67).
4. Oral digoxin may be reasonable for ongoing management in patients with
symptomatic SVT without pre-excitation who are not candidates for, or prefer not to
undergo, catheter ablation (50).
Page 17 of 74
placement of multielectrode catheters in the heart at 1 sites in the atria, ventricles, or coronary sinus. Pacing
and programmed electrical stimulation may be performed with or without pharmacological provocation. By
using diagnostic maneuvers during the EP study, the mechanism of SVT can be defined in most cases (31, 69).
Complications of diagnostic EP studies are rare but can be life threatening (70).
A table of success and complication rates for ablation of SVT is included in the full-text guideline and
in the Online Data Supplement (Appendix 3). Cardiac mapping is performed during EP studies to identify the
site of origin of an arrhythmia or areas of critical conduction to allow targeting of ablation. Multiple techniques
have been developed to characterize the temporal and spatial distribution of electrical activation (71).
Several tools have been developed to facilitate arrhythmia mapping and ablation, including
electroanatomic 3-dimensional mapping and magnetic navigation. Potential benefits of these technologies
include more precise definition or localization of arrhythmia mechanism, spatial display of catheters and
arrhythmia activation, reduction in fluoroscopy exposure for the patient and staff, and shortened procedure
times, particularly for complex arrhythmias or anatomy (72).
Fluoroscopy has historically been the primary imaging modality used for EP studies. Attention to
optimal fluoroscopic technique and adoption of radiation-reducing strategies can minimize radiation dose to the
patient and operator. The current standard is to use the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle on
the assumption that there is no threshold below which ionizing radiation is free from harmful biological effect.
Alternative imaging systems, such as electroanatomic mapping and intracardiac echocardiography, have led to
the ability to perform SVT ablation with no or minimal fluoroscopy, with success and complication rates similar
to standard techniques (73-77). A reduced-fluoroscopy approach is particularly important in pediatric patients
and during pregnancy (78, 79).
Radiofrequency current is the most commonly used energy source for SVT ablation (80). Cryoablation
is used as an alternative to radiofrequency ablation to minimize injury to the AV node during ablation of specific
arrhythmias, such as AVNRT, para-Hisian AT, and para-Hisian accessory pathways, particularly in specific
patient populations, such as children and young adults. Selection of the energy source depends on operator
experience, arrhythmia target location, and patient preference.
3. Sinus Tachyarrhythmias
In normal individuals, the sinus rate at rest is generally between 50 bpm and 90 bpm, reflecting vagal tone (8184). Sinus tachycardia refers to the circumstance in which the sinus rate exceeds 100 bpm. On the ECG, the P
wave is upright in leads I, II, and aVF and is biphasic in lead V1.
amphetamines, cocaine). In these cases, tachycardia is expected to resolve with correction of the underlying
cause.
Page 20 of 74
commonly recur after several months, with IST recurrence in up to 27% and overall symptomatic recurrence
(IST or non-IST AT) in 45% of patients (94, 96, 97, 99). Complications can be significant. In view of the
modest benefit of this procedure and its potential for significant harm, sinus node modification should be
considered only for patients who are highly symptomatic and cannot be adequately treated by medication, and
then only after informing the patient that the risks may outweigh the benefits of ablation.
See Online Data Supplements 4 and 5 for data supporting Section 3.
COR
LOE
C-LD
IIa
B-R
IIb
C-LD
IIb
C-LD
Recommendations
1. Evaluation for and treatment of reversible causes are recommended in patients
with suspected IST (81, 101).
1. Ivabradine is reasonable for ongoing management in patients with symptomatic
IST (85-93).
1. Beta blockers may be considered for ongoing management in patients with
symptomatic IST (87, 89).
2. The combination of beta blockers and ivabradine may be considered for ongoing
management in patients with IST (89).
4.1. Focal AT
Focal AT is defined in Table 2. Focal AT can be sustained or nonsustained. The atrial rate during focal AT is
usually between 100 bpm and 250 bpm (102). Presence and severity of symptoms during focal ATs are variable
among patients. Focal AT in the adult population is usually associated with a benign prognosis, although ATmediated cardiomyopathy has been reported in up to 10% of patients referred for ablation of incessant SVT
(103, 104). Nonsustained focal AT is common and often does not require treatment.
The diagnosis of focal AT is suspected when the ECG criteria are met (Section 2). Algorithms have
been developed to estimate the origin of the focal AT from the P-wave morphology recorded on a standard 12lead ECG (105, 106). The precise location of the focal AT is ultimately confirmed by mapping during EP
studies when successful ablation is achieved (107-116). Focal AT originates more frequently from the right
atrium than from the left atrium (117, 118).
Sinus node reentrant tachycardia is an uncommon type of focal AT that involves a microreentrant circuit
in the region of the sinoatrial node, causing a P-wave morphology that is identical to that of sinus tachycardia
(although this is not sinus tachycardia). Characteristics that distinguish sinus node reentry from sinus
tachycardia are an abrupt onset and termination and often a longer RP interval than that observed during normal
sinus rhythm.
Page 21 of 74
COR
LOE
C-LD
C-LD
IIa
B-NR
IIb
C-LD
IIb
C-LD
Recommendations
1. Intravenous beta blockers, diltiazem, or verapamil is useful for acute treatment in
hemodynamically stable patients with focal AT (107, 119-121).
2. Synchronized cardioversion is recommended for acute treatment in patients with
hemodynamically unstable focal AT (44, 122).
1. Adenosine can be useful in the acute setting to either restore sinus rhythm or
diagnose the tachycardia mechanism in patients with suspected focal AT (107, 121,
123).
1. Intravenous amiodarone may be reasonable in the acute setting to either restore
sinus rhythm or slow the ventricular rate in hemodynamically stable patients with
focal AT (120, 124).
2. Ibutilide may be reasonable in the acute setting to restore sinus rhythm in
hemodynamically stable patients with focal AT (120, 124).
Page 22 of 74
LOE
B-NR
IIa
C-LD
IIa
C-LD
Recommendations
1. Catheter ablation is recommended in patients with symptomatic focal AT as an
alternative to pharmacological therapy (104, 107-112, 114-116, 124-126).
1. Oral beta blockers, diltiazem, or verapamil are reasonable for ongoing management
in patients with symptomatic focal AT (107, 119, 120).
2. Flecainide or propafenone can be effective for ongoing management in patients
without structural heart disease or ischemic heart disease who have focal AT (127Page 23 of 74
IIb
C-LD
131).
1. Oral sotalol or amiodarone may be reasonable for ongoing management in patients
with focal AT (104, 129, 132-136).
LOE
IIa
C-LD
Recommendation
1. Intravenous metoprolol (141) or verapamil (142, 143) can be useful for acute
treatment in patients with MAT.
LOE
B-NR
Recommendations
1. Oral verapamil (Level of Evidence: B-NR) or diltiazem (Level of Evidence: C-LD) is
Page 24 of 74
C-LD
IIa
C-LD
LOE
B-R
B-R
B-NR
B-NR
IIa
B-R
IIb
C-LD
IIb
C-LD
Recommendations
1. Vagal maneuvers are recommended for acute treatment in patients with AVNRT
(33-35, 146, 147).
2. Adenosine is recommended for acute treatment in patients with AVNRT (37, 41, 43,
148).
3. Synchronized cardioversion should be performed for acute treatment in
hemodynamically unstable patients with AVNRT when adenosine and vagal
maneuvers do not terminate the tachycardia or are not feasible (44, 122).
4. Synchronized cardioversion is recommended for acute treatment in
hemodynamically stable patients with AVNRT when pharmacological therapy does
not terminate the tachycardia or is contraindicated (36, 45).
1. Intravenous beta blockers, diltiazem, or verapamil are reasonable for acute
treatment in hemodynamically stable patients with AVNRT (47, 149-152).
1. Oral beta blockers, diltiazem, or verapamil may be reasonable for acute treatment
in hemodynamically stable patients with AVNRT (153, 154).
2. Intravenous amiodarone may be considered for acute treatment in
hemodynamically stable patients with AVNRT when other therapies are ineffective or
contraindicated (67).
Page 25 of 74
AVNRT
Vagal maneuvers
and/or IV adenosine
(Class I)
Oral beta blockers,
diltiazem, or
verapamil may be
reasonable for
acute treatment in
hemodynamically
stable patients with
AVNRT (Class IIb)
If ineffective
Hemodynamically
stable
No
Yes
IV beta blockers,
IV diltiazem, or
IV verapamil
(Class IIa)
If ineffective
or not feasible
Synchronized
cardioversion*
(Class I)
If ineffective
or not feasible
IV amiodarone
(Class IIb)
Colors correspond to Class of Recommendation in Table 1; drugs listed alphabetically.
*For rhythms that break or recur spontaneously, synchronized cardioversion is not appropriate.
AVNRT indicates atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia; and IV, intravenous.
LOE
B-R
B-NR
B-R
IIa
B-R
Recommendations
1. Oral verapamil or diltiazem is recommended for ongoing management in patients
with AVNRT who are not candidates for, or prefer not to undergo, catheter ablation
(49, 50, 155, 156).
2. Catheter ablation of the slow pathway is recommended in patients with AVNRT
(51-58, 157-161).
3. Oral beta blockers are recommended for ongoing management in patients with
AVNRT who are not candidates for, or prefer not to undergo, catheter ablation
(50).
1. Flecainide or propafenone is reasonable for ongoing management in patients
without structural heart disease or ischemic heart disease who have AVNRT and
Page 26 of 74
IIa
B-NR
IIb
B-R
IIb
B-R
IIb
C-LD
are not candidates for, or prefer not to undergo, catheter ablation and in whom beta
blockers, diltiazem, or verapamil are ineffective or contraindicated (48, 59-66, 153,
154, 162, 163).
2. Clinical follow-up without pharmacological therapy or ablation is reasonable for
ongoing management in minimally symptomatic patients with AVNRT (156).
1. Oral sotalol or dofetilide may be reasonable for ongoing management in patients
with AVNRT who are not candidates for, or prefer not to undergo, catheter ablation
(59, 66).
2. Oral digoxin or amiodarone may be reasonable for ongoing treatment of AVNRT
in patients who are not candidates for, or prefer not to undergo, catheter ablation
(50, 67).
3. Self-administered (pill-in-the-pocket) acute doses of oral beta blockers,
diltiazem, or verapamil may be reasonable for ongoing management in patients with
infrequent, well-tolerated episodes of AVNRT (153, 154).
Page 27 of 74
Page 28 of 74
The most common tachycardia associated with an accessory pathway is orthodromic AVRT, with a
circuit that uses the AV node and His Purkinje system in the anterograde direction, followed by conduction
through the ventricle, retrograde conduction over the accessory pathway, and completion of the circuit by
conduction through the atrium back into the AV node. Orthodromic AVRT accounts for approximately 90% to
95% of AVRT episodes in patients with a manifest accessory pathway. Pre-excited AVRT, including antidromic
AVRT, accounts for 5% of the AVRT episodes in patients with a manifest pathway and involves conduction
from the atrium to the ventricle via the accessory pathway, causing a pre-excited QRS complex. This is called
antidromic AVRT tachycardia when the return reentrant conduction occurs retrogradely via the AV node. In rare
cases of pre-excited AVRT, the return conduction occurs via a second accessory AV pathway. AF can occur in
patients with accessory pathways, which may result in extremely rapid conduction to the ventricle over a
manifest pathway, which increases the risk of inducing ventricular fibrillation and SCD.
Rapid anterograde accessory pathway conduction during AF can result in SCD in patients with a
manifest accessory pathway, with a 10-year risk ranging from 0.15% to 0.24% (164, 165). Unfortunately, SCD
may be the first presentation of patients with undiagnosed WPW. Increased risk of SCD is associated with a
history of symptomatic tachycardia, multiple accessory pathways, and a shortest pre-excited R-R interval of
<250 ms during AF. The risk of SCD associated with WPW appears highest in the first 2 decades of life (165169).
LOE
B-R
B-R
B-NR
B-NR
B-NR
C-LD
IIa
B-R
C-LD
Recommendations
1. Vagal maneuvers are recommended for acute treatment in patients with
orthodromic AVRT (43, 147, 170, 171).
2. Adenosine is beneficial for acute treatment in patients with orthodromic AVRT (43,
172, 173).
3. Synchronized cardioversion should be performed for acute treatment in
hemodynamically unstable patients with AVRT if vagal maneuvers or adenosine are
ineffective or not feasible (170, 174, 175).
4. Synchronized cardioversion is recommended for acute treatment in
hemodynamically stable patients with AVRT when pharmacological therapy is
ineffective or contraindicated (36, 45).
5. Synchronized cardioversion should be performed for acute treatment in
hemodynamically unstable patients with pre-excited AF (44, 170).
6. Ibutilide (176) or intravenous procainamide (177) is beneficial for acute treatment
in patients with pre-excited AF who are hemodynamically stable.
1. Intravenous diltiazem, verapamil (43, 172, 178, 179) (Level of Evidence: B-R) or beta
blockers (180) (Level of Evidence: C-LD) can be effective for acute treatment in
patients with orthodromic AVRT who do not have pre-excitation on their resting ECG
Page 29 of 74
IIb
B-R
III:
Harm
C-LD
Page 30 of 74
Orthodromic AVRT
Vagal maneuvers
and/or IV adenosine
(Class I)
If ineffective
or not feasible
Hemodynamically
stable
Yes
No
Synchronized
cardioversion
(Class I)
Pre-excitation
on resting
ECG
Yes
IV beta blockers,
IV diltiazem, or
IV verapamil
(Class IIb)
No
IV beta blockers,
IV diltiazem, or
IV verapamil
(Class IIa)
Synchronized
Cardioversion*
(Class I)
Colors correspond to Class of Recommendation in Table 1; drugs listed alphabetically.
*For rhythms that break or recur spontaneously, synchronized cardioversion is not appropriate.
AVRT indicates atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia; ECG, electrocardiogram; and IV, intravenous.
Page 31 of 74
LOE
B-NR
C-LD
IIa
B-R
IIb
B-R
IIb
C-LD
IIb
C-LD
IIb
C-LD
III:
Harm
C-LD
Recommendations
1. Catheter ablation of the accessory pathway is recommended in patients with
AVRT and/or pre-excited AF (55, 165, 187-193).
2. Oral beta blockers, diltiazem, or verapamil are indicated for ongoing management
of AVRT in patients without pre-excitation on their resting ECG (48, 194).
1. Oral flecainide or propafenone is reasonable for ongoing management in patients
without structural heart disease or ischemic heart disease who have AVRT and/or
pre-excited AF and are not candidates for, or prefer not to undergo, catheter
ablation (60, 61, 64, 65, 195).
1. Oral dofetilide or sotalol may be reasonable for ongoing management in patients
with AVRT and/or pre-excited AF who are not candidates for, or prefer not to
undergo, catheter ablation (99,106).
2. Oral amiodarone may be considered for ongoing management in patients with
AVRT and/or pre-excited AF who are not candidates for, or prefer not to undergo,
catheter ablation and in whom beta blockers, diltiazem, flecainide, propafenone, and
verapamil are ineffective or contraindicated (196, 197).
3. Oral beta blockers, diltiazem, or verapamil may be reasonable for ongoing
management of orthodromic AVRT in patients with pre-excitation on their resting
ECG who are not candidates for, or prefer not to undergo, catheter ablation (48,
194).
4. Oral digoxin may be reasonable for ongoing management of orthodromic AVRT
in patients without pre-excitation on their resting ECG who are not candidates for,
or prefer not to undergo, catheter ablation (198).
1. Oral digoxin is potentially harmful for ongoing management in patients with
AVRT or AF and pre-excitation on their resting ECG (182).
Page 32 of 74
Page 33 of 74
3. What is the usefulness of invasive EP study (without catheter ablation of the accessory pathway) or
noninvasive EP study for predicting arrhythmic events (including SCD) in patients with asymptomatic
pre-excitation?
4. What are the efficacy and effectiveness of invasive EP study with catheter ablation of the accessory
pathway as appropriate versus noninvasive tests with treatment (including observation) or no
testing/ablation as appropriate for preventing arrhythmic events (including SCD) and improving
outcomes in patients with asymptomatic pre-excitation?
LOE
B-NR SR
I
C-LD SR
IIa
B-NR SR
IIa
B-NR SR
IIa
B-NR SR
IIa
B-NR SR
Recommendations
1. In asymptomatic patients with pre-excitation, the findings of abrupt loss of
conduction over a manifest pathway during exercise testing in sinus rhythm (199202) (Level of Evidence: B-NR) SR or intermittent loss of pre-excitation during ECG or
ambulatory monitoring (202) (Level of Evidence: C-LD) SR are useful to identify
patients at low risk of rapid conduction over the pathway.
1. An EP study is reasonable in asymptomatic patients with pre-excitation to riskstratify for arrhythmic events (165, 167, 203-206).
2. Catheter ablation of the accessory pathway is reasonable in asymptomatic patients
with pre-excitation if an EP study identifies a high risk of arrhythmic events,
including rapidly conducting pre-excited AF (165, 207, 208).
3. Catheter ablation of the accessory pathway is reasonable in asymptomatic patients
if the presence of pre-excitation precludes specific employment (such as with pilots)
(55, 165, 187-193, 207-209).
4. Observation, without further evaluation or treatment, is reasonable in
asymptomatic patients with pre-excitation (206, 210-213).
LOE
B-NR
I
C-LD
I
B-NR
Recommendations
1. In symptomatic patients with pre-excitation, the findings of abrupt loss of
conduction over the pathway during exercise testing in sinus rhythm (199-202) (Level
of Evidence: B-NR) or intermittent loss of pre-excitation during ECG or ambulatory
monitoring (202) (Level of Evidence: C-LD) are useful for identifying patients at low
risk of developing rapid conduction over the pathway.
2. An EP study is useful in symptomatic patients with pre-excitation to risk-stratify
for life-threatening arrhythmic events (165, 167, 203-205).
7. Atrial Flutter
See Figure 10 for the algorithm for acute treatment of atrial flutter, Figure 11 for the algorithm for ongoing
management of atrial flutter, and Online Data Supplements 16 and 17 for data supporting Section 7.
CTI ablation, 22% to 50% of patients have been reported to develop AF after a mean follow-up of 14 to 30
months, although 1 study reported a much higher rate of AF development, with 82% of patients treated by
catheter ablation for atrial flutter manifesting AF within 5 years (217). Risk factors for the manifesting AF after
atrial flutter ablation include prior AF, depressed left ventricular function, structural heart disease or ischemic
heart disease, inducible AF, and increased LA size (216-221).
LOE
B-R
B-NR
B-NR
C-LD
B-NR
IIa
B-R
Recommendations
1. Oral dofetilide or intravenous ibutilide is useful for acute pharmacological
cardioversion in patients with atrial flutter (229-236).
2. Intravenous or oral beta blockers, diltiazem, or verapamil are useful for acute rate
control in patients with atrial flutter who are hemodynamically stable (237-244).
3. Elective synchronized cardioversion is indicated in stable patients with welltolerated atrial flutter when a rhythm-control strategy is pursued (245-247).
4. Synchronized cardioversion is recommended for acute treatment of patients with
atrial flutter who are hemodynamically unstable and do not respond to
pharmacological therapies (122, 170, 245, 248).
5. Rapid atrial pacing is useful for acute conversion of atrial flutter in patients who
have pacing wires in place as part of a permanent pacemaker or implantable
cardioverter-defibrillator or for temporary atrial pacing after cardiac surgery (249253).
6. Acute antithrombotic therapy is recommended in patients with atrial flutter to
align with recommended antithrombotic therapy for patients with AF (254).
1. Intravenous amiodarone can be useful for acute control of the ventricular rate (in
the absence of pre-excitation) in patients with atrial flutter and systolic heart failure,
when beta blockers are contraindicated or ineffective (240, 255, 256).
Page 35 of 74
LOE
B-R
C-LD
C-LD
B-NR
IIa
B-R
IIa
B-NR
IIa
C-LD
IIa
C-LD
Recommendations
1. Catheter ablation of the CTI is useful in patients with atrial flutter that is either
symptomatic or refractory to pharmacological rate control (155, 257-260).
2. Beta blockers, diltiazem, or verapamil are useful to control the ventricular rate in
patients with hemodynamically tolerated atrial flutter (237-239).
3. Catheter ablation is useful in patients with recurrent symptomatic nonCTIdependent flutter after failure of at least 1 antiarrhythmic agent (261, 262).
4. Ongoing management with antithrombotic therapy is recommended in patients
with atrial flutter to align with recommended antithrombotic therapy for patients
with AF (254).
1. The following drugs can be useful to maintain sinus rhythm in patients with
symptomatic, recurrent atrial flutter, with the drug choice depending on underlying
heart disease and comorbidities:
a. Amiodarone (263)
b. Dofetilide (236, 264)
c. Sotalol (265)
2. Catheter ablation is reasonable in patients with CTI-dependent atrial flutter that
occurs as the result of flecainide, propafenone, or amiodarone used for treatment of
AF (266-269).
3. Catheter ablation of the CTI is reasonable in patients undergoing catheter
ablation of AF who also have a history of documented clinical or induced CTIdependent atrial flutter (269, 270).
4. Catheter ablation is reasonable in patients with recurrent symptomatic nonCTIPage 36 of 74
IIb
B-R
IIb
C-LD
Atrial flutter
Treatment
strategy
Rate control
Rhythm control*
Options to consider
Beta blockers,
diltiazem, or
verapamil
(Class I)
Catheter ablation
(Class I)
Amiodarone,
dofetilide, or
sotalol
(Class IIa)
Flecainide or
propafenone
(in the absence
of SHD)
(Class IIb)
If ineffective
Colors correspond to Class of Recommendation in Table 1; drugs listed alphabetically.
*After assuring adequate anticoagulation or excluding left atrial thrombus by transesophageal echocardiography before
conversion.
Should be combined with AV nodalblocking agents to reduce risk of 1:1 conduction during atrial flutter.
AV indicates atrioventricular; SHD, structural heart disease (including ischemic heart disease).
8. Junctional Tachycardia
See Figure 12 for the algorithm for ongoing management of junctional tachycardia and Online Data
Supplements 18 and 19 for data supporting Section 8.
Page 37 of 74
Junctional tachycardia (defined in Table 2) is a rapid, occasionally irregular, narrow-complex tachycardia (with
rates typically of 120 bpm to 220 bpm) that arises from the AV junction (including the His bundle). AV
dissociation (often isorhythmic) may be seen, and when present, excludes the misdiagnosis of AVRT and makes
AVNRT highly unlikely. If it is irregular, junctional tachycardia may be misdiagnosed as AF or MAT. The
mechanism for junctional tachycardia is enhanced (abnormal) automaticity from an ectopic focus in the AV
junction (including the His bundle) (275).
Junctional tachycardia is uncommon in adults (275); it is typically seen in infants postoperatively, after
cardiac surgery for congenital heart disease; this is also known as junctional ectopic tachycardia. As such, there
is limited evidence with regard to diagnosis and management of junctional tachycardia in adult patients.
A related rhythm, nonparoxysmal junctional tachycardia (more commonly known as accelerated AV
junctional rhythm), is far more common in adults than paroxysmal junctional tachycardia. The mechanism of
nonparoxysmal junctional tachycardia is associated with automaticity or triggered activity. It occurs at a slower
rate (70 bpm to 130 bpm) and is often due to digoxin toxicity (276) or myocardial infarction (277, 278).
Treatment of this rhythm centers on addressing the underlying condition.
LOE
IIa
C-LD
IIa
C-LD
Recommendations
1. Intravenous beta blockers are reasonable for acute treatment in patients with
symptomatic junctional tachycardia (275).
2. Intravenous diltiazem, procainamide, or verapamil is reasonable for acute
treatment in patients with junctional tachycardia (279).
LOE
IIa
C-LD
IIa
C-LD
IIb
C-LD
IIb
C-LD
Recommendations
1. Oral beta blockers are reasonable for ongoing management in patients with
junctional tachycardia (275).
2. Oral diltiazem or verapamil is reasonable for ongoing management in patients with
junctional tachycardia (279).
1. Flecainide or propafenone may be reasonable for ongoing management in patients
without structural heart disease or ischemic heart disease who have junctional
tachycardia (280, 281).
2. Catheter ablation may be reasonable in patients with junctional tachycardia when
medical therapy is not effective or contraindicated (282-288).
Page 38 of 74
9. Special Populations
9.1. Pediatrics
As discussed in the Scope (Section 1.4), the present document is aimed at the adult population (18 years of
age) and offers no specific recommendations for pediatric patients. Nevertheless, a brief discussion of SVT in
pediatric patients is included below, highlighting major considerations with regard to SVT in younger patients,
including adolescent patients.
SVT in young patients varies significantly from SVT in adult patients in terms of mechanism, risk of
developing heart failure or cardiac arrest, risks associated with interventional therapy, natural history, and
psychosocial impact. Approximately half of pediatric SVT presents in the first 4 months of life, with age-related
peaks in occurrence subsequently at 5 to 8 years and after 13 years. Accessory pathwaymediated tachycardia
accounts for >70% of SVT in infants, decreasing to approximately 55% in adolescents (21, 289-291). AVNRT
increases with age, from 9% to 13% of SVT in infants, to 30% to 50% of SVT in teenagers. Atrial flutter is seen
in some neonates and in older children is predominantly observed after congenital heart disease. AF is
uncommon in childhood, accounting for <3% of supraventricular arrhythmias, and may be a consequence of
AVRT or AVNRT in adolescents or may be associated with repaired congenital heart disease. Congestive heart
failure is present in up to 20% of infants and in older children with incessant tachycardia and in rare cases may
necessitate mechanical cardiopulmonary support during initial therapy (292).
Page 39 of 74
The risk of ventricular fibrillation or SCD related to WPW in childhood is 1.3% to 1.6% and is highest
in the first 2 decades of life (23, 165-168). The risk of cardiac arrest is higher in patients with AVRT
precipitating AF, short accessory connection refractory periods, and posteroseptal accessory pathways (23, 165168). Pharmacological therapy of SVT in childhood is largely based on practice patterns because RCTs of
antiarrhythmic medications in children are lacking. AV nodalblocking drugs are widely used for the most
common arrhythmias, AVRT, and AVNRT. Higher initial doses of adenosine are needed in children than in
adults, with children receiving from 150 mcg/kg to 250 mcg/kg (293-295). Digoxin is avoided in the presence of
pre-excitation because its use in infancy has been associated with SCD or ventricular fibrillation (296, 297).
Amiodarone, sotalol, propafenone, or flecainide can be used for refractory SVT in infants. In older children
presenting with SVT, beta-blocker therapy is most often the initial therapy used. Because of the rare occurrence
of adverse events with flecainide, including in patients without structural heart disease, flecainide is not used as
a first-line medication in children (298).
Catheter ablation can be successfully performed in children of all ages, with acute success rates
comparable to those reported in adults (192, 193, 299, 300). Complications were reported in 4% to 8% of the
initial large series, with major complications in 0.9% to 3.2%, and complication rates were higher in patients
weighing <15 kg (192, 299-301). The implications of complications, including AV block requiring pacing,
perforation, and coronary artery or mitral valve injury, are profound in young patients (302-304). In early series,
death was reported in 0.12% of children with normal hearts and was associated with lower weight and increased
number of ablation lesions (305). Although most centers perform elective ablation for children weighing >12 kg
to 15 kg, ablation in younger or smaller children is generally reserved for those with medically refractory SVT
or tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy or before surgery that may limit access for subsequent catheter-based
procedures.
Junctional ectopic tachycardia occurs predominantly in very young patients either as a congenital form
or, more commonly, after intracardiac repair of congenital heart disease. Nonpostoperative junctional
tachycardia has been reported to respond to amiodarone or combination therapy including beta blockers,
flecainide, procainamide, or propafenone (306). Ablation for patients with refractory tachycardia or ventricular
dysfunction has shown efficacy of 82% to 85%, but inadvertent AV block occurred in 18% and recurrence was
seen in 14% of patients (306). Postoperative junctional tachycardia occurs in 2% to 10% of young patients
undergoing intracardiac surgery (307, 308). Treatment includes sedation with muscle relaxation, limitation of
inotropic medications, reduction of core temperature to 34 to 35C, atrial overdrive pacing, and procainamide or
amiodarone infusions (309-313). In general, postoperative junctional tachycardia resolves and does not require
ongoing therapy.
Page 40 of 74
Although this guideline focuses on adults, it should be noted that SVT may occur in the fetus and, if sustained,
may put the fetus at risk of cardiovascular collapse manifested by hydrops. Mothers require safety monitoring
by adult cardiologists during treatment. The most common mechanisms for fetal SVT are AVRT and atrial
flutter (314). Persistent SVT with hydrops carries a high mortality rate, and therefore, prompt and aggressive
treatment is warranted. Maternal administration of antiarrhythmic agents has been shown to be effective through
transplacental delivery.
LOE
C-LD
B-NR
C-LD
Recommendations
1. Acute antithrombotic therapy is recommended in ACHD patients who have AT or
atrial flutter to align with recommended antithrombotic therapy for patients with AF
(254).
2. Synchronized cardioversion is recommended for acute treatment in ACHD patients
and SVT who are hemodynamically unstable (170, 332).
3. Intravenous diltiazem or esmolol (with extra caution used for either agent, observing
for the development of hypotension) is recommended for acute treatment in ACHD
patients and SVT who are hemodynamically stable (333, 334).
Page 41 of 74
B-NR
IIa
B-NR
IIa
B-NR
IIa
B-NR
IIb
B-NR
Page 42 of 74
Hemodynamically
stable
Yes
No
IV adenosine and/or
synchronized cardioversion
(Class I)
IV adenosine
(Class I)
If ineffective
If ineffective
Treatment
strategy
Rate control
IV diltiazem or
IV esmolol
(Class I)
Rhythm control
Synchronized
cardioversion*
(Class IIa)
IV ibutilide,
IV procainamide, or
atrial pacing
(Class IIa)
Dofetilide or
sotalol
(Class IIb)
LOE
C-LD
C-LD
Recommendations
1. Ongoing management with antithrombotic therapy is recommended in ACHD
patients and AT or atrial flutter to align with recommended antithrombotic
therapy for patients with AF (254).
2. Assessment of associated hemodynamic abnormalities for potential repair of
structural defects is recommended in ACHD patients as part of therapy for SVT
(347, 348).
Page 43 of 74
IIa
B-NR
IIa
B-NR
IIa
B-NR
IIa
B-NR
IIb
B-NR
IIb
B-NR
IIb
B-NR
III:
Harm
B-NR
9.3. Pregnancy
Pregnancy may confer an increased susceptibility to a variety of arrhythmias, even in the absence of underlying
heart disease (378). Pregnancy is also associated with an increased risk of arrhythmia exacerbation, such as
more frequent and refractory tachycardia episodes, in patients with a pre-existing arrhythmic substrate (379).
Although there is potential toxicity to the fetus with certain pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies,
safe options exist to allow for treating most cases of maternal SVT effectively.
The literature on therapeutic options for the management of arrhythmias in pregnancy is generally
limited to single case reports or small series and favors the use of older antiarrhythmic agents because of more
abundant reports on the safe use of these drugs. Although all medications have potential side effects to both the
Page 44 of 74
mother and the fetus at any stage of pregnancy, if possible, drugs should be avoided in the first trimester, when
risk of congenital malformations is greatest. The lowest recommended dose should be used initially,
accompanied by regular monitoring of clinical response.
LOE
C-LD
C-LD
C-LD
IIa
C-LD
IIb
C-LD
IIb
C-LD
IIb
C-LD
Recommendations
1. Vagal maneuvers are recommended for acute treatment in pregnant patients with
SVT (147, 380).
2. Adenosine is recommended for acute treatment in pregnant patients with SVT (380).
3. Synchronized cardioversion is recommended for acute treatment in pregnant
patients with hemodynamically unstable SVT when pharmacological therapy is
ineffective or contraindicated (380).
1. Intravenous metoprolol or propranolol is reasonable for acute treatment in pregnant
patients with SVT when adenosine is ineffective or contraindicated (380).
1. Intravenous verapamil may be reasonable for acute treatment in pregnant patients
with SVT when adenosine and beta blockers are ineffective or contraindicated (380).
2. Intravenous procainamide may be reasonable for acute treatment in pregnant
patients with SVT (381).
3. Intravenous amiodarone may be considered for acute treatment in pregnant patients
with potentially life-threatening SVT when other therapies are ineffective or
contraindicated (382, 383).
LOE
IIa
C-LD
IIb
C-LD
IIb
C-LD
Recommendations
1. The following drugs, alone or in combination, can be effective for ongoing
management in pregnant patients with highly symptomatic SVT:
a. Digoxin (382, 384)
b. Flecainide (382, 384)
c. Metoprolol (382, 385)
d. Propafenone (382)
e. Propranolol (382, 385)
f. Sotalol (382, 384)
g. Verapamil (382)
1. Catheter ablation may be reasonable in pregnant patients with highly symptomatic,
recurrent, drug-refractory SVT with efforts toward minimizing radiation exposure
(386, 387).
2. Oral amiodarone may be considered for ongoing management in pregnant patients
when treatment of highly symptomatic, recurrent SVT is required and other therapies
are ineffective or contraindicated (382, 383).
rise as consequences of increasing AF ablation in this patient population, yet there are limited outcome data
from RCTs for this segment of the population. Therapeutic decisions should be balanced between the overall
risks and benefits of the invasive nature of ablation versus long-term commitment to pharmacological therapy.
COR
LOE
B-NR
Recommendation
1. Diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to SVT should be individualized in patients
more than 75 years of age to incorporate age, comorbid illness, physical and cognitive
functions, patient preferences, and severity of symptoms (27, 28, 388-396).
11. Cost-Effectiveness
The small body of literature evaluating cost-effectiveness strategies in PSVT has traditionally centered
on an evaluation of medical therapy versus catheter ablation. A rigorous cost-effectiveness Markov model was
conducted in 2000 to compare radiofrequency ablation to medical management with generic metoprolol from
the societal perspective (57). The estimated population consisted of patients with AVNRT (approximately 65%)
and AVRT. On the basis of this simulation, the authors concluded that, for symptomatic patients with monthly
episodes of PSVT, radiofrequency ablation was the more effective and less expensive strategy when compared
with medical therapy. An observational cohort study of patients with atrial flutter supported early ablation to
significantly reduce hospital-based healthcare utilization and the risk of AF (397).
These studies, along with other older literature, favor catheter ablation over medical therapy as the most
cost-effective approach to treating PSVT and atrial flutter. However, the results of these studies were based on
cost data and practice patterns that do not apply to the current environment and practice. Therefore, no
recommendations are provided.
See Online Data Supplement 23 for data supporting Section 11.
Page 46 of 74
Shared decision making is especially important for patients with SVT. As seen in this guideline, SVT
treatment can be nuanced and requires expert knowledge of EP processes and treatment options. Treatment
options are highly specific to the exact type of arrhythmia and can depend on certain characteristics of a
particular arrhythmia. The various choices for therapy, including drugs, cardioversion, invasive treatment, or a
combination thereof, can be confusing to the patient, so a detailed explanation of the benefits and risks must be
included in the conversation.
Patients are encouraged to ask questions with time allotted for caregivers to respond. Providing a
relaxed atmosphere, anticipating patient concerns, and encouraging patients to keep a notebook with questions
could facilitate productive conversations.
It is also important that clinicians use lay terminology to explain treatment options to their patients. It is
the responsibility of the physician and healthcare team to provide the patient with the best possible
understanding of all management options in terms of risks, benefits, and potential effects on quality of life.
Presidents and Staff
American College of Cardiology
Kim A. Williams, Sr, MD, FACC, FAHA, President
Shalom Jacobovitz, Chief Executive Officer
William J. Oetgen, MD, MBA, FACC, Executive Vice President, Science, Education, and Quality
Amelia Scholtz, PhD, Publication Manager, Science, Education, and Quality
American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association
Lisa Bradfield, CAE, Director, Science and Clinical Policy
Abdul R. Abdullah, MD, Associate Science and Medicine Advisor
Alexa Papaila, Project Manager, Science and Clinical Policy
American Heart Association
Mark A. Creager, MD, FACC, FAHA, President
Nancy Brown, Chief Executive Officer
Rose Marie Robertson, MD, FAHA, Chief Science Officer
Gayle R. Whitman, PhD, RN, FAHA, FAAN, Senior Vice President, Office of Science Operations
Marco Di Buono, PhD, Vice President, Science, Research, and Professional Education
Jody Hundley, Production Manager, Scientific Publications, Office of Science Operations
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. Daniel B. Mark for his invaluable assistance in reviewing studies relating to quality of life and
cost-effectiveness. His research and insight informed much of the discussion on these topics. We also thank Dr.
Sarah A. Spinler for her contributions with regard to antiarrhythmic drug therapy.
Key Words: AHA Scientific Statements Tachycardia, Supraventricular Tachycardia, Atrioventricular
Nodal Reentry Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome Catheter Ablation Tachycardia, Ectopic Atrial
Tachycardia, Ectopic Junctional Atrial Flutter Anti-Arrhythmia Agents Accessory Atrioventricular
Bundle; Valsalva Maneuver Tachycardia, Reciprocating Electric Countershock Heart Defects, Congenital
Death, Sudden Electrophysiologic Techniques, Cardiac Sinus Tachycardia
Page 47 of 74
Appendix 1. Author Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant)2015 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline for the
Management of Adult Patients With Supraventricular Tachycardia (April 2014)
Committee
Member
Employment
Richard L.
Page (Chair)
University of Wisconsin
School of Medicine and
Public HealthChair,
Department of Medicine
University of Texas
Southwestern Medical
CenterProfessor of
Internal Medicine;
Program Director,
Clinical Cardiac
Electrophysiology
Duke Clinical Research
InstituteAssociate
Professor of Medicine
University of California
San FranciscoAssistant
Professor (Retired)
Johns Hopkins Hospital
Professor of Medicine,
Director of
Electrophysiology
Jos A. Joglar
(Vice Chair)
Sana M. AlKhatib
Mary A.
Caldwell
Hugh Calkins
Consultant
Speakers
Bureau
Ownership/
Partnership/
Principal
Personal
Research
None
None
None
None
Institutional,
Organizational,
or Other
Financial Benefit
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Atricure
Boehringer
Ingelheim
DaiichiSankyo
None
None
St. Jude
Medical
None
None
All Sections
except 2.4,
5.2, 6.1.2,
9.3.2, and 9.4.
Boston
Scientific
Medtronic
St. Jude
Medical
None
None
All Sections
except 2.4,
6.1.2, 9.3.2,
and 9.4.
None
None
Jamie B.
Conti
University of Florida
Professor of Medicine,
Chief of Cardiovascular
Medicine
None
None
None
Medtronic
Barbara J.
Deal
Feinberg School of
Medicine, Northwestern
UniversityProfessor of
Pediatrics; Ann & Robert
H. Lurie Childrens
Hospital of Chicago
None
None
None
None
Page 48 of 74
Expert
Witness
Voting
Recusals by
Section*
None
None
N.A. Mark
Estes III
Michael E.
Field
Zachary D.
Goldberger
Stephen C.
Hammill
Julia H. Indik
Bruce D.
Lindsay
Brian
Olshansky
Division Head,
Cardiology
Tufts University School
of MedicineProfessor
of Medicine
University of Wisconsin
School of Medicine and
Public HealthAssistant
Professor of Medicine,
Director of Cardiac
Arrhythmia Service
University of Washington
School of Medicine
Assistant Professor of
Medicine
Mayo ClinicProfessor
Emeritus of Medicine
University of Arizona
Associate Professor of
Medicine
Cleveland Clinic
FoundationProfessor of
Cardiology
University of Iowa
HospitalsProfessor
Emeritus of Medicine;
Mercy Hospital Mason
CityElectrophysiologist
Boston
Scientific
Medtronic
St. Jude
Medical
None
None
None
Boston
Scientific
None
All Sections
except 2.4,
5.2, 6.1.2,
9.3.2, and 9.4.
None
Boston
Scientific
Medtronic
St. Jude
Medical
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Biosense
Webster
Boston
Scientific
CardioInsight
Medtronic
BioControl
Biotronik
BoehringerIngelheim
Boston
ScientificGuidant
DaiichiSankyo
Medtronic
Sanofiaventis
None
None
None
Boston
Scientific
Medtronic
St. Jude
Medical
None
All Sections
except 2.4,
5.2, 6.1.2,
9.3.2, and 9.4.
None
None
Amarin
(DSMB)
Boston
Scientific
(DSMB)
Sanofiaventis
(DSMB)
Boston
Scientific
None
All Sections
except 2.4 and
9.4.
Page 49 of 74
According to the ACC/AHA, a person has a relevant relationship IF: a) the relationship or interest relates to the same or similar subject matter, intellectual property or
asset, topic, or issue addressed in the document; or b) the company/entity (with whom the relationship exists) makes a drug, drug class, or device addressed in the
document, or makes a competing drug or device addressed in the document; or c) the person or a member of the persons household, has a reasonable potential for
financial, professional or other personal gain or loss as a result of the issues/content addressed in the document.
*Writing committee members are required to recuse themselves from voting on sections to which their specific relationships with industry and other entities may apply.
Significant relationship.
No financial benefit.
ACC indicates American College of Cardiology; AHA, American Heart Association; DSMB, data safety monitoring board; and HRS, Heart Rhythm Society.
Page 50 of 74
Appendix 2. Reviewer Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant)2015 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline for the
Management of Adult Patients With Supraventricular Tachycardia (March 2015)
Reviewer
Representation
Employment
Eugene H.
Chung
Official
ReviewerHRS
Timm L.
Dickfeld
Official
ReviewerHRS
Samuel S.
Gidding
Official
Reviewer
ACC/AHA Task
Force on Clinical
Practice
Guidelines
Official
ReviewerACC
Board of Trustees
University of North
Carolina School of
MedicineAssociate
Professor of Medicine
University of
Maryland School of
MedicineAssociate
Professor of Medicine;
Baltimore Veterans
Affairs Medical
CenterDirector,
Electrophysiology
Nemours Cardiac
CenterDivision
Chief of Cardiology;
Jefferson Medical
CollegeProfessor of
Pediatrics
Krannert Institute of
Cardiology
Professor of Clinical
Medicine
Richard J.
Kovacs
Consultant
Speakers
Bureau
Ownership/
Partnership
/ Principal
Personal
Research
Institutional,
Organizational,
or Other
Financial Benefit
Zoll Medical
Expert
Witness
None
None
None
None
None
Biosense
Webster
None
None
Biosense
Webster*
General
Electric*
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Biomedical
Systems*
None
None
Siemens
AstraZeneca
(DSMB)
MED Institute*
Eli Lilly
(DSMB)*
Teva
Pharmaceuticals
CarioNet*
None
Byron K.
Lee
Official
ReviewerAHA
University of
California San
FranciscoProfessor
of Medicine
Biotronik
Boston Scientific
St. Jude Medical
None
None
Zoll Medical*
Gregory F.
Michaud
Official
ReviewerAHA
Harvard Medical
SchoolAssistant
Professor
Boston Scientific
Medtronic
St. Jude Medical
None
None
Biosense
Webster*
Boston
Page 51 of 74
None
Defendant,
Boehringer
Ingelheimer,
2013
None
Representation
Simone
Musco
Official
ReviewerACC
Board of
Governors
Mohan N.
Viswanatha
n
Official
ReviewerAHA
Seshadri
Balaji
Content Reviewer
Nancy C.
Berg
Content
ReviewerACC
Electrophysiolog
y Section
Content
ReviewerACC
Electrophysiolog
y Section
Content Reviewer
Noel G.
Boyle
A. John
Camm
Employment
The International
Heart Institute of
Montana
Foundation
Cardiology Research
Investigator
University of
Washington School of
MedicineAssistant
Professor of Medicine
Oregon Health and
Science University
Professor of Pediatrics
and Pediatric
Cardiology, Director
of Pacing and
Electrophysiology
Allina Health System
University of
California Los
AngelesClinical
Professor of Medicine
St. Georges
University of
LondonProfessor of
Clinical Cardiology
Consultant
Speakers
Bureau
Ownership/
Partnership
/ Principal
Personal
Research
Institutional,
Organizational,
or Other
Financial Benefit
Expert
Witness
None
BristolMyers
Squibb
Sanofiaventis
None
Scientific*
St. Jude
Medical*
None
Biosense
Webster
Siemens
St. Jude Medical
None
None
None
Medtronic*
None
None
None
None
Medtronic*
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Bayer*
Biotronik
Boehringer
Ingelheim
Boston Scientific
ChanRx
Daiichi-Sankyo
Medtronic
Menarini
Mitsubishi
Pfizer
None
None
None
None
Page 52 of 74
None
None
Representation
Robert M.
Campbell
Content
ReviewerACC
Adult Congenital
and Pediatric
Cardiology
Section
Susan P.
Etheridge
Content
ReviewerACC
Adult Congenital
and Pediatric
Cardiology
Section
Content Reviewer
Paul A.
Friedman
Bulent
Gorenek
Content
ReviewerACC
Electrophysiolog
y Section
Jonathan L.
Halperin
Content
Reviewer
ACC/AHA Task
Employment
Mayo Clinic
Professor of Medicine;
Cardiovascular
Implantable Device
LaboratoryDirector
Eskisehir Osmangazi
UniversityProfessor
and Vice Director,
Cardiology
Department
Mt. Sinai Medical
Professor of Medicine
Consultant
Speakers
Bureau
Ownership/
Partnership
/ Principal
Personal
Research
Institutional,
Organizational,
or Other
Financial Benefit
Expert
Witness
Novartis
Richmond
Pharmacology*
Sanofi-aventis
Servier
Pharmaceuticals*
St. Jude Medical
Takeda
Pharmaceuticals
Xention
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
NeoChord
None
None
Biotronik
Medtronic
St. Jude
Medical
Preventice
Sorin*
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
AstraZeneca
Bayer Healthcare
Biotronik
None
None
None
None
None
Page 53 of 74
Representation
Employment
Force on Clinical
Practice
Guidelines
Warren M.
Jackman
Content Reviewer
G. Neal
Kay
Content Reviewer
George J.
Klein
Content Reviewer
Bradley P.
Knight
Content Reviewer
John D.
Kugler
Content Reviewer
Fred M.
Kusumoto
Glenn N.
Content Reviewer
Content
University of
Oklahoma Health
Sciences Center
George Lynn Cross
Research Professor
Emeritus; Heart
Rhythm Institute
Senior Scientific
Advisor
University of
AlabamaProfessor
Emeritus
London Health
Sciences Center
Chief of Cardiology
Northwestern
UniversityProfessor
of Cardiology
University of
Nebraska Medical
CenterDivision
Chief of Pediatric
Cardiology
Mayo Clinic
Professor of Medicine
Baylor College of
Consultant
Boehringer
Ingelheim
Boston Scientific
Daiichi-Sankyo
Johnson &
Johnson
Medtronic
Pfizer
Biosense
Webster*
Boston
Scientific*
VytronUS*
Speakers
Bureau
Ownership/
Partnership
/ Principal
Personal
Research
Institutional,
Organizational,
or Other
Financial Benefit
Expert
Witness
AtriCure*
Biosense
Webster*
Biotronik*
Boston
Scientific*
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Biotronik
Boston Scientific
Medtronic
Boston Scientific
Medtronic
None
None
None
None
None
Biosense
Webster
Biotronik
Boston
Scientific
Medtronic
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Page 54 of 74
Levine
Marco A.
Mercader
Representation
Employment
Reviewer
ACC/AHA Task
Force on Clinical
Practice
Guidelines
Content Reviewer
MedicineProfessor
of Medicine; Director,
Cardiac Care Unit
William M.
Miles
Content Reviewer
Fred
Morady
Content Reviewer
Melvin M.
Scheinman
Content Reviewer
Sarah A.
Spinler
Content Reviewer
George Washington
UniversityAssociate
Professor of Medicine
University of
FloridaProfessor of
Medicine, Silverstein
Chair for
Cardiovascular
Education, Director of
the Clinical Cardiac
Electrophysiology
Fellowship Program
University of
MichiganMcKay
Professor of
Cardiovascular
Disease
University of
California San
FranciscoProfessor
of Medicine
University of the
Sciences, Philadelphia
College of
PharmacyProfessor
of Clinical Pharmacy
Consultant
Speakers
Bureau
Ownership/
Partnership
/ Principal
Personal
Research
Institutional,
Organizational,
or Other
Financial Benefit
Expert
Witness
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Medtronic
(DSMB)
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Amgen
Biosense
Webster
Biotronik*
Boston
Scientific*
Gilead Sciences
Janssen
Pharmaceuticals
Medtronic
St. Jude Medical
Portola
Pharmaceuticals
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Page 55 of 74
Representation
Employment
Consultant
Speakers
Bureau
Ownership/
Partnership
/ Principal
Personal
Research
William G.
Stevenson
Content Reviewer
None
None
None
Albert L.
Waldo
Content Reviewer
Brigham and
Womens Hospital
Director, Clinical
Cardiac
Electrophysiology
Program
University Hospitals
Associate Chief of
Cardiovascular
Medicine for
Academic Affairs;
Case Western Reserve
University School of
MedicineProfessor
of Medicine
AtriCure
Biosense
Webster*
CardioInsight
ChanRx
Daiichi-Sankyo
Gilead Sciences
Pfizer
St. Jude
Medical*
Biosense
Webster
BristolMyers
Squibb*
Janssen
Pharmaceut
icals
Pfizer*
None
Gilead
Sciences*
Institutional,
Organizational,
or Other
Financial Benefit
None
Expert
Witness
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Harvard Medical
SchoolProfessor of
Pediatrics; Boston
Childrens Hospital
Chief, Division of
Cardiac
Electrophysiology
None
None
Richard C.
Content Reviewer University of Texas
None
None
None
Boehringer
Wu
Southwestern Medical
Ingelheim
CenterProfessor of
Janssen
Internal Medicine,
Pharmaceutic
Director of Cardiac
al
Electrophysiology Lab
Medtronic
This table represents the relationships of reviewers with industry and other entities that were disclosed at the time of peer review and determined to be relevant to this
document. It does not necessarily reflect relationships with industry at the time of publication. A person is deemed to have a significant interest in a business if the
interest represents ownership of 5% of the voting stock or share of the business entity, or ownership of $5,000 of the fair market value of the business entity; or if
funds received by the person from the business entity exceed 5% of the persons gross income for the previous year. A relationship is considered to be modest if it is less
than significant under the preceding definition. Relationships that exist with no financial benefit are also included for the purpose of transparency. Relationships in this
table are modest unless otherwise noted. Names are listed in alphabetical order within each category of review.
Edward
Walsh
Content Reviewer
According to the ACC/AHA, a person has a relevant relationship IF: a) the relationship or interest relates to the same or similar subject matter, intellectual property or
asset, topic, or issue addressed in the document; or b) the company/entity (with whom the relationship exists) makes a drug, drug class, or device addressed in the
Page 56 of 74
Page 57 of 74
References
References
1. Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines, Institute of Medicine (U.S.).
Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2011.
2. Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research, Institute of Medicine
(U.S.). Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press, 2011.
3. ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Methodology Manual and Policies From the ACCF/AHA Task
Force on Practice Guidelines. American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. 2010. Available
at: http://assets.cardiosource.com/Methodology_Manual_for_ACC_AHA_Writing_Committees.pdf and
http://my.americanheart.org/idc/groups/ahamah-public/@wcm/@sop/documents/downloadable/ucm_319826.pdf.
Accessed January 23, 2015.
4. Jacobs AK, Kushner FG, Ettinger SM, et al. ACCF/AHA clinical practice guideline methodology summit report: a
report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice
Guidelines. Circulation. 2013;127:268-310.
5. Jacobs AK, Anderson JL, Halperin JL. The evolution and future of ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines: a 30year journey: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice
Guidelines. Circulation. 2014;130:120817.
6. Anderson JL, Heidenreich PA, Barnett PG, et al. ACC/AHA statement on cost/value methodology in clinical
practice guidelines and performance measures: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart
Association Task Force on Performance Measures and Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation.
2014;129:232945.
7. Halperin JL, Levine GN, Al-Khatib SM. Further evolution of the ACC/AHA clinical practice guideline
recommendation classification system: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American
Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2015; IN PRESS
8. Arnett DK, Goodman RA, Halperin JL, et al. AHA/ACC/HHS strategies to enhance application of clinical practice
guidelines in patients with cardiovascular disease and comorbid conditions: from the American Heart Association,
American College of Cardiology, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Circulation.
2014;130:16627.
9. Page RL, Joglar JA, Al-Khatib SM, et al. 2015 ACC/AHA/HRS guideline for the management of adult patients
with supraventricular tachycardia: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association
Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2015;132:000-000.
10. Al-Khatib SM, Arshad A, Balk EM, et al. Risk stratification for arrhythmic events in patients with asymptomatic
pre-excitation: a systematic review for the 2015 ACC/AHA/HRS guideline for the management of adult patients
with supraventricular tachycardia: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association
Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Journal of the American College of
Cardiology. 2015; IN PRESS
11. January CT, Wann LS, Alpert JS, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With
Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on
Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation 2014;130:e199267.
12. Blomstrm-Lundqvist C, Scheinman MM, Aliot EM, et al. ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines for the management of
patients with supraventricular arrhythmiasexecutive summary: a report of the American College of
Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of
Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of
Patients With Supraventricular Arrhythmias). Developed in collaboration with NASPE-Heart Rhythm Society.
Circulation 2003;108:1871909.
13. Orejarena LA, Vidaillet H, DeStefano F, et al. Paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia in the general population.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:150-7.
Page 58 of 74
Page 62 of 74
Page 66 of 74
Page 72 of 74
Page 74 of 74