Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in a low-volume center using contemporary technology. (December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tay, Julian Cheong Kiat; Cai, Xinzhe James; Lin, Jing; Liang, Shufen; Him, Ai Ling; Hamid, Sherida Binte Syed; Wong, Kelvin Cheok Keng; Yeo, Colin; Tan, Vern Hsen
• Is Part Of: IJC heart & vasculature. Volume 31(2021)
• Publication Date: 2020-12
• Subjects: Atrial fibrillation -- Catheter ablation -- Low-volume centre; Cardiovascular system -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Cardiovascular system -- Pathophysiology -- Periodicals; 616.1005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2020.100661
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2352-9067

Abstract

Highlights: There has been significant heterogeneity in the definition of what constitutes as low volume operator /center for AF ablation. Current literature suggests lower success rates but higher complications rates in low-volume centers. First AF catheter ablation in a low-volume center has comparable safety and efficacy outcomes to high-volume centers using contemporary ablation technologies. Abstract: Background: Catheter ablation is increasingly being performed worldwide for atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there are concerns of lower success rates and higher complications of AF ablations performed in low-volume centers. Thus, we sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of AF catheter ablation in a low-volume center using contemporary technologies. Methods and results: 71 consecutive patients (50 paroxysmal AF [pAF] vs 21 persistent AF) who underwent first catheter ablation were studied. Primary outcome was AF recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes included periprocedural complications, hospitalization for symptomatic tachy-arrhythmias post-ablation and number of repeat ablations. Mean age of our cohort was 59.1 ± 9.7 years, of which 56 (78.9%) were males. 1-year AF recurrence was 19.5% in pAF and 23.8% in persistent AF (p = 0.694). Ablation in persistent AF group required longer procedural (197.76 ± 48.60 min [pAF] vs 238.67 ± 70.50 min [persistent AF], p = 0.006) and ablation duration (35.08 ± 15.84 min [pAF] vs 52.65 ± 28.46 min [persistent AF], p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes. Major periprocedural complication rate was 2.8%. Subset analysis on (i) cryoablation vs radiofrequency, (ii) Ensite vs CARTO navigational system and (iii) circular vs high density mapping catheter did not yield significant differences in primary or secondary outcomes. Conclusions: The AF ablation complication and recurrence free rates in both paroxysmal and persistent AF at one year were comparable to high-volume centers. Long-term follow up is needed. In addition, first AF catheter ablation in a low-volume center is realistic with comparable efficacy and safety outcomes to high-volume centers using contemporary ablation technologies.