Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation - Single center experience

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in a low-volume center using contemporary technology

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.

EQ-5D in Central and Eastern Europe: 2000-2015

OBJECTIVE

Cost per quality-adjusted life year data are required for reimbursement decisions in many Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. EQ-5D is by far the most commonly used instrument to generate utility values in CEE. This study aims to systematically review the literature on EQ-5D from eight CEE countries.

METHODS

An electronic database search was performed up to 1 July 2015 to identify original EQ-5D studies from the countries of interest. We analysed the use of EQ-5D with respect to clinical areas, methodological rigor, population norms and value sets.

RESULTS

We identified 143 studies providing 152 country-specific results with a total sample size of 81,619: Austria (n = 11), Bulgaria (n = 6), Czech Republic (n = 18), Hungary (n = 47), Poland (n = 51), Romania (n = 2), Slovakia (n = 3) and Slovenia (n = 14). Cardiovascular (21 %), neurologic (17 %), musculoskeletal (15 %) and endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases (13 %) were the most frequently studied clinical areas. Overall, 112 (78 %) of the studies reported EQ VAS results and 86 (60 %) EQ-5D index scores, of which 27 (31 %) did not specify the applied tariff. Hungary, Poland and Slovenia have population norms. Poland and Slovenia also have a national value set.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing use of EQ-5D is observed throughout CEE. The spread of health technology assessment activities in countries seems to be reflected in the number of EQ-5D studies. However, improvement in informed use and methodological quality of reporting is needed. In jurisdictions where no national value set is available, in order to ensure comparability we recommend to apply the most frequently used UK tariff. Regional collaboration between CEE countries should be strengthened.