Subscribe for unlimited access to DynaMed content, CME/CE & MOC credit, and email alerts on content you follow.

Already subscribed? Sign in now

Learn more about CME

Supraventricular Tachycardia (SVT)

MoreVert
AddCircleOutlineFollow
ShareShare
AddCircleOutlineFollow
Follow
ShareShare
Share

General Information

Description

  • tachyarrhythmias involving atrial or atrioventricular nodal tissue (or both) for initiation and conduction2,3

Also called

  • SVT
  • paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT)

Types

  • most SVT types have reentry mechanism and are classified based on location of reentry circuit1,2
    • atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT)
      • most common form of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT)
      • ventricular heart rate typically 180-200 beats/minute, but can range 110 to > 250 beats/minute and may be < 100 beats/minute in rare cases
    • atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia (AVRT)
      • tachycardia due to extranodal accessory pathway
      • orthodromic AVRT accounts for about 90%-95% of episodes while pre-excited AVRT (including antidromic AVRT) accounts for about 5% of episodes
      • includes Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome
    • atrial tachycardia (AT)
      • focal atrial tachycardia (FAT), heart rate typically 100-250 beats/minute
      • multifocal atrial tachycardia (MAT), heart rate not exclusively rapid and rhythm always irregular
    • other rare types include
      • inappropriate sinus tachycardia (IST)
        • symptomatic sinus tachycardia unexplained by physiological demands at rest, with minimal exertion, or during recovery from exercise
        • heart rate typically > 100 beats/minute
      • focal junctional tachycardia (very rare), heart rate typically 110-250 beats/minute
      • nonparoxysmal junctional tachycardia, heart rate typically 70-120 beats/minute

References

General references used

  1. Page RL, Joglar JA, Caldwell MA, 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. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Apr 5;67(13):e27-e115OpenInNewfull-textOpenInNew, also published in Heart Rhythm 2016 Apr;13(4):e136OpenInNew and in Circulation 2016 Apr 5;133(14):e506OpenInNew
  2. Delacrétaz E. Clinical practice. Supraventricular tachycardia. N Engl J Med. 2006 Mar 9;354(10):1039-51OpenInNew
  3. Whinnett ZI, Sohaib SM, Davies DW. Diagnosis and management of supraventricular tachycardia. BMJ. 2012 Dec 11;345:e7769OpenInNew

Recommendation grading systems used

  • American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) grading system for recommendations
    • classifications of recommendations
      • Class I - procedure or treatment should be performed or administered
      • Class IIa - reasonable to perform procedure or administer treatment, but additional studies with focused objectives needed
      • Class IIb - procedure or treatment may be considered; additional studies with broad objectives needed, additional registry data would be useful
      • Class III - procedure or treatment should not be performed or administered because it is not helpful or may be harmful
        • Class III ratings may be subclassified as Class III No Benefit or Class III Harm
    • levels of evidence
      • Level A - high-quality evidence from > 1 randomized controlled trial or meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials
      • Level B-R - moderate-quality evidence from ≥ 1 randomized controlled trial or meta-analysis of moderate-quality randomized controlled trials
      • Level B-NR - moderate-quality evidence from ≥ 1 well-designed nonrandomized trial, observational studies, or registry studies, or meta-analysis of such studies
      • Level C-LD - randomized or nonrandomized studies with methodological limitations or meta-analyses of such studies
      • Level C-EO - consensus of expert opinion based on clinical experience
  • American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) grading system for recommendations
    • classifications of recommendations
      • Class I - procedure or treatment should be performed or administered
      • Class IIa - reasonable to perform procedure or administer treatment, but additional studies with focused objectives needed
      • Class IIb - procedure or treatment may be considered; additional studies with broad objectives needed, additional registry data would be useful
      • Class III - procedure or treatment should not be performed or administered because it is not helpful or may be harmful
        • Class III ratings may be subclassified as Class III No Benefit or Class III Harm
    • levels of evidence
      • Level A - data derived from multiple randomized clinical trials or meta-analyses
      • Level B - data derived from single randomized trial or nonrandomized studies
      • Level C - only expert opinion, case studies, or standard of care

Synthesized Recommendation Grading System for DynaMed

  • DynaMed systematically monitors clinical evidence to continuously provide a synthesis of the most valid relevant evidence to support clinical decision-making (see 7-Step Evidence-Based MethodologyOpenInNew).
  • Guideline recommendations summarized in the body of a DynaMed topic are provided with the recommendation grading system used in the original guideline(s), and allow DynaMed users to quickly see where guidelines agree and where guidelines differ from each other and from the current evidence.
  • In DynaMed (DM), we synthesize the current evidence, current guidelines from leading authorities, and clinical expertise to provide recommendations to support clinical decision-making in the Overview & Recommendations section.
  • We use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)OpenInNew to classify synthesized recommendations as Strong or Weak.
    • Strong recommendations are used when, based on the available evidence, clinicians (without conflicts of interest) consistently have a high degree of confidence that the desirable consequences (health benefits, decreased costs and burdens) outweigh the undesirable consequences (harms, costs, burdens).
    • Weak recommendations are used when, based on the available evidence, clinicians believe that desirable and undesirable consequences are finely balanced, or appreciable uncertainty exists about the magnitude of expected consequences (benefits and harms). Weak recommendations are used when clinicians disagree in judgments of relative benefit and harm, or have limited confidence in their judgments. Weak recommendations are also used when the range of patient values and preferences suggests that informed patients are likely to make different choices.
  • DynaMed (DM) synthesized recommendations (in the Overview & Recommendations section) are determined with a systematic methodology:
    • Recommendations are initially drafted by clinical editors (including ≥ 1 with methodological expertise and ≥ 1 with content domain expertise) aware of the best current evidence for benefits and harms, and the recommendations from guidelines.
    • Recommendations are phrased to match the strength of recommendation. Strong recommendations use "should do" phrasing, or phrasing implying an expectation to perform the recommended action for most patients. Weak recommendations use "consider" or "suggested" phrasing.
    • Recommendations are explicitly labeled as Strong recommendations or Weak recommendations when a qualified group has explicitly deliberated on making such a recommendation. Group deliberation may occur during guideline development. When group deliberation occurs through DynaMed-initiated groups:
      • Clinical questions will be formulated using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) framework for all outcomes of interest specific to the recommendation to be developed.
      • Systematic searches will be conducted for any clinical questions where systematic searches were not already completed through DynaMed content development.
      • Evidence will be summarized for recommendation panel review including for each outcome, the relative importance of the outcome, the estimated effects comparing intervention and comparison, the sample size, and the overall quality rating for the body of evidence.
      • Recommendation panel members will be selected to include at least 3 members that together have sufficient clinical expertise for the subject(s) pertinent to the recommendation, methodological expertise for the evidence being considered, and experience with guideline development.
      • All recommendation panel members must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (professional, intellectual, and financial), and will not be included for the specific panel if a significant conflict exists for the recommendation in question.
      • Panel members will make Strong recommendations if and only if there is consistent agreement in a high confidence in the likelihood that desirable consequences outweigh undesirable consequences across the majority of expected patient values and preferences. Panel members will make Weak recommendations if there is limited confidence (or inconsistent assessment or dissenting opinions) that desirable consequences outweigh undesirable consequences across the majority of expected patient values and preferences. No recommendation will be made if there is insufficient confidence to make a recommendation.
      • All steps in this process (including evidence summaries which were shared with the panel, and identification of panel members) will be transparent and accessible in support of the recommendation.
    • Recommendations are verified by ≥ 1 editor with methodological expertise, not involved in recommendation drafting or development, with explicit confirmation that Strong recommendations are adequately supported.
    • Recommendations are published only after consensus is established with agreement in phrasing and strength of recommendation by all editors.
    • If consensus cannot be reached then the recommendation can be published with a notation of "dissenting commentary" and the dissenting commentary is included in the topic details.
    • If recommendations are questioned during peer review or post publication by a qualified individual, or reevaluation is warranted based on new information detected through systematic literature surveillance, the recommendation is subject to additional internal review.

DynaMed Editorial Process

Special acknowledgements

  • Saumya Das, MD, PhD (Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Physician in Cardiac Electrophysiology, Massachusetts General Hospital; Massachusetts, United States) has provided peer review.
  • Dr. Das declares no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
  • Esther Jolanda van Zuuren, MD (Head of Allergy, Dermatology, and Venereology, Leiden University Medical Centre; Netherlands)
  • Dr. van Zuuren declares no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
  • Peter Oettgen MD, FACC, FAHA, FACP (Editor in Chief; Cardiologist, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts, United States)
  • Dr. Oettgen declares no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
  • The American College of Physicians (Marjorie Lazoff, MD, FACP; ACP Deputy Editor, Clinical Decision Resource) provided review in a collaborative effort to ensure DynaMed provides the most valid and clinically relevant information in internal medicine.
  • DynaMed topics are written and edited through the collaborative efforts of the above individuals. Deputy Editors, Section Editors, and Topic Editors are active in clinical or academic medical practice. Recommendations Editors are actively involved in development and/or evaluation of guidelines.
  • Editorial Team role definitions
    Topic Editors define the scope and focus of each topic by formulating a set of clinical questions and suggesting important guidelines, clinical trials, and other data to be addressed within each topic. Topic Editors also serve as consultants for the internal DynaMed Editorial Team during the writing and editing process, and review the final topic drafts prior to publication.
    Section Editors have similar responsibilities to Topic Editors but have a broader role that includes the review of multiple topics, oversight of Topic Editors, and systematic surveillance of the medical literature.
    Recommendations Editors provide explicit review of DynaMed Overview and Recommendations sections to ensure that all recommendations are sound, supported, and evidence-based. This process is described in "Synthesized Recommendation Grading."
    Deputy Editors are employees of DynaMed and oversee DynaMed internal publishing groups. Each is responsible for all content published within that group, including supervising topic development at all stages of the writing and editing process, final review of all topics prior to publication, and direction of an internal team.

How to cite

National Library of Medicine, or "Vancouver style" (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors):

  • DynaMed [Internet]. Ipswich (MA): EBSCO Information Services. 1995 - . Record No. T113613, Supraventricular Tachycardia (SVT); [updated 2018 Nov 30, cited place cited date here]. Available from https://www.dynamed.com/topics/dmp~AN~T113613. Registration and login required.
  • KeyboardArrowRight

    Overview and Recommendations

    • Background

    • Evaluation

    • KeyboardArrowRight

      Management

      • Acute management

      • Chronic management

  • Related Summaries

  • KeyboardArrowRight

    General Information

    • Description

    • Also called

    • Types

  • KeyboardArrowRight

    Epidemiology

    • Who is most affected

    • Incidence/Prevalence

    • Likely risk factors

    • Associated conditions

  • KeyboardArrowRight

    Etiology and Pathogenesis

    • Causes

    • Pathogenesis

  • KeyboardArrowRight

    History and Physical

    • KeyboardArrowRight

      History

      • Chief concern (CC)

      • History of present illness (HPI)

    • KeyboardArrowRight

      Physical

      • General physical

  • KeyboardArrowRight

    Diagnosis

    • Making the diagnosis

    • Differential diagnosis

    • Testing overview

    • KeyboardArrowRight

      Imaging studies

      • Echocardiography

    • Electrocardiography (ECG) algorithms for diagnosing wide QRS complex tachycardias

    • Electrocardiography (ECG)

    • Other diagnostic testing

  • KeyboardArrowRight

    Management

    • KeyboardArrowRight

      Management overview

      • Acute management

      • Chronic management

    • Activity

    • KeyboardArrowRight

      Medications

      • KeyboardArrowRight

        Acute management

        • Recommendations

        • Efficacy

      • Acute management of patients with atrial fibrillation during SVT treatment

      • KeyboardArrowRight

        Chronic management

        • General considerations

        • Recommendations based on SVT type

        • Efficacy

        • Pill-in-the-pocket strategy

      • Recommendations for adults with congenital heart disease

    • KeyboardArrowRight

      Surgery and procedures

      • KeyboardArrowRight

        Catheter ablation therapy

        • Radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrioventricular nodal reentrant and atrioventricular reentrant tachycardias

        • Cryoablation for atrioventricular nodal reentrant and atrioventricular reentrant tachycardias

        • Radiofrequency catheter ablation for other SVTs

      • DC cardioversion

      • Recommendations for adults with congenital heart disease

      • Recommendations for pregnant women

    • Consultation and referral

    • KeyboardArrowRight

      Other management

      • Vagal stimulation

      • Management of patients with atrial fibrillation during SVT treatment

  • KeyboardArrowRight

    Complications and Prognosis

    • Complications

    • Prognosis

  • KeyboardArrowRight

    Prevention and Screening

    • Prevention

  • KeyboardArrowRight

    Guidelines and Resources

    • KeyboardArrowRight

      Guidelines

      • United States guidelines

      • Asian guidelines

    • Review articles

    • MEDLINE search

  • Patient Information

  • KeyboardArrowRight

    ICD Codes

    • ICD-10 codes

  • KeyboardArrowRight

    References

    • General references used

    • Recommendation grading systems used

    • Synthesized Recommendation Grading System for DynaMed

    • DynaMed Editorial Process

    • Special acknowledgements

    • How to cite

Topic Editor
Saumya Das MD, PhD
KeyboardArrowDown
Affiliations

Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Massachusetts, United States; Physician in Cardiac Electrophysiology, Massachusetts General Hospital; Massachusetts, United States

Conflicts of Interest

Dr. Das declares no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

Recommendations Editor
Esther Jolanda van Zuuren MD
KeyboardArrowDown
Affiliations

Head of Allergy, Dermatology, and Venereology, Leiden University Medical Centre; Netherlands

Conflicts of Interest

Dr. van Zuuren declares no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

Deputy Editor
Peter Oettgen MD
KeyboardArrowDown
Affiliations

Editor in Chief, DynaMed; Cardiologist, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; Massachusetts, United States; Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Massachusetts, United States

Conflicts of Interest

Dr. Oettgen declares no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

Produced in collaboration with American College of Physicians

Images in topic (8)

View all
Mechanism of AV Nodal Reentrant Tachycardia

Mechanism of AV Nodal Reentrant Tachycardia

CheckCircle
Subscribe for unlimited access to DynaMed content.
Already subscribed? Sign in

top