Safety and acute efficacy of cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation at community hospitals

Safety and feasibility of cardiac electrophysiology procedures in ambulatory surgery centers

BACKGROUND

Despite their improved safety, by and large, cardiac electrophysiology procedures including catheter ablation (CA), are presently performed in hospital outpatient departments.

OBJECTIVE

This large multicenter study investigated the safety and outcomes associated with various cardiac electrophysiology procedures performed at 6 ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), primarily during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic under the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospitals Without Walls program.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes from consecutive electrophysiology procedures performed in ASCs with same-day discharge, including transesophageal echocardiography, cardioversion, cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation, electrophysiology studies, and CA for atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter (AFL)/supraventricular tachycardia, ventricular premature complexes (VPCs), and atrioventricular node.

RESULTS

Altogether, 4037 procedures were performed, including 779 transesophageal echocardiography/cardioversion procedures (19.3%), 1453 CIED implantation procedures (36.0%), 26 electrophysiology studies (0.6%), and 1779 CA procedures (44.1%) for AF (75.4%), AFL/supraventricular tachycardia (18.8%), VPC (4.7%), and atrioventricular node (1.1%). Overall, 80.2% of CA procedures were for left-sided atrial arrhythmias (AF/atypical AFL) requiring transseptal catheterization. Left-sided VPC ablation procedures (42.2%) were performed using a transseptal/retrograde approach. Adverse event rates were low, but comparable between CIED implantation and CA (0.76% vs 0.73%; P = .93), as were the incidences of urgent/unplanned postprocedure hospitalization (0.48% vs 0.45%; P = .89), respectively. Moreover, the adverse event rates in ASCs vs hospital outpatient departments did not differ for CIED (0.76% vs 0.65%; P = .71) or CA (0.73% vs 0.80%; P = .79).

CONCLUSION

The results from this large multicenter study suggest that ASCs represent a safe and effective setting to perform a variety of cardiac electrophysiology procedures including CA. These findings bear important implications for healthcare delivery and policy.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society.

Outcomes of atrial fibrillation ablation in community hospitals with and without onsite cardiothoracic surgery availability

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist on outcomes of atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation based on hospital setting and, specifically, the availability of onsite cardiothoracic surgery (CTS). We aimed to describe the characteristics and outcomes of catheter ablation for AF performed at a facility with and without CTS.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent catheter ablation for AF at hospital with (CTS) and without cardiothoracic surgery (N-CTS) from January 2011 through December 2019. Clinical and procedural characteristics, complications, and 1-year outcomes, including clinical events and AF recurrence, were collected.

RESULTS

There were 326 unique patients who underwent an index AF ablation procedure: 206 CTS patients and 120 N-CTS patients. There were no differences in overall cardiac complications (2.5% vs. 5.8%), including mapping catheter entrapment requiring open-heart surgery (0% vs. 0.5%), pericardial effusion requiring pericardiocentesis (0.8% vs. 0.5%), hemopericardium (1.7% vs. 0.5%), acute myocardial infarction (0% vs. 1.0%), and sinus node injury (0% versus 0.5%) (all P values > .05) between N-CTS and CTS patients. Likewise, overall noncardiac complications (20.7% vs. 19.8%, P = .85), including bleeding, cerebrovascular accident, and phrenic or vagus nerve injury, were similar between N-CTS and CTS hospitals. Also, 1-year cumulative Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall AF recurrence (11.6% vs. 16.4%; log-rank P = 0.21; HR 1.47; 95% CI, 0.79-2.74) were not statistically significant between N-CTS and CTS hospitals.

CONCLUSION

Catheter ablation procedure is safe and effective regardless of onsite CTS presence, and there were no significant differences between the two hospital settings.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific HRS, and the Latin American HRS.

Comparing pulsed field electroporation and radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: design and rationale of the BEAT PAROX-AF randomized clinical trial

AIMS

Using thermal-based energy sources [radiofrequency (RF) energy/cryo energy] for catheter ablation is considered effective and safe when performing pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). However, treatment success remains limited and complications can occur due to the propagation of thermal energy into non-target tissues. We aim to compare pulsed field ablation (PFA) with RF ablation in terms of efficacy and safety for patients with drug-resistant paroxysmal AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The BEAT PAROX-AF trial is a European multicentre, superiority, open-label randomized clinical trial in two parallel groups. A total of 292 participants were recruited in 9 high-volume European clinical centres in 5 countries. Patients with paroxysmal AF were randomized to PFA (FARAPULSE Endocardial Ablation System©, Boston Scientific) or RF using the CLOSE protocol with contact force sensing catheter (SmartTouch© catheter and CARTO© Biosense Webster). The primary endpoint will be the 1-year recurrence of atrial arrhythmia, and the major secondary safety endpoint will be the occurrence of acute (<7 days) procedure-related serious adverse events, or pulmonary vein stenosis, or atrio-oesophageal fistula up to 12 months. Additionally, five sub-studies investigate the effect of PFA on oesophageal safety, cerebral lesions, cardiac autonomic nervous system, durability of PVI as assessed during redo ablation procedures, and atrial and ventricular function. The study began on 27 December 2021 and concluded recruitment on 17 January 2024. Results will be available in mid-2025.

CONCLUSION

The BEAT PAROX-AF trial aims to provide critical insights into the optimal treatment approach for patients with paroxysmal AF.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society .

Single-shot technique of cryoablation for atrial fibrillation has comparable effective and safety outcomes compared to standard technique: insights from multiple clinical studies

Background

Although there are many freezing protocols available, the optimal freezing dose is still not determined. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different freeze strategies of CBA in the treatment of AF.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase were searched up to 1st December 2022. Studies comparing the outcomes between single-shot technique and standard technique of cryoablation were included. Subgroup analysis identified potential determinants for single-shot technique procedure.

Results

Our search resulted in 3407 records after deduplication. A total of 17 qualified studies met our inclusion criteria. Compared with standard technique, single-shot technique of cryoablation has a comparable rate of freedom from AF/AT(RR 1.00; P = 0.968), a trend for lower rate of procedure complications (RR 0.80; P = 0.069), a lower rate in transient phrenic paralysis (t-PNP) (RR 0.67; P = 0.038), a similar rate in persistent phrenic paralysis (per-PNP) (RR 1.15; P = 0.645), as well as a comparable procedure parameters. Importantly, potentially significant treatment covariable interactions in procedure complications were found in freeze strategy subgroup, male proportion subgroup and age subgroup, including single-shot freeze (RR 1.02; P = 0.915) and TTI-guided (RR 0.63; P = 0.007) with interaction P = 0.051, high male proportion (RR 0.54; P = 0.005) and a low male proportion (RR 0.94; P = 0.759) with interaction P = 0.074, as well as age ≥ 65 (RR0.91; P = 0.642) and age <65 (RR 0.54; P = 0.006),interaction P = 0.090. Meanwhile, only one significant treatment covariable interactions in procedure complications was found in the hypertension subgroup, including HT > 60% (RR 0.89; P = 0.549) and HT ≤ 60% (RR 0. 46; P < 0.01) with interaction P = 0.043.

Conclusions

Our study suggested that single-shot technique of cryoablation has comparable effective and safety outcomes for AF ablation compared to standard technique.

Twelve-month efficacy of second-generation cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation performed at community hospitals: results of the German register on cryoballoon ablation in local hospitals (regional)

BACKGROUND

The 12-month follow-up (F/U) efficacy of CBA PVI performed at community hospitals for treatment of symptomatic paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) is unknown. This study determined the 12-month efficacy of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using cryoballoon ablation (CBA) performed at community hospitals with limited annual case numbers.

METHODS

This registry study included 983 consecutive patients (pts) from 19 hospitals, each with an annual procedural volume of < 100 PVI procedures/year. Pts underwent CBA PVI for paroxysmal AF (n = 520), persistent AF (n = 423), or redo PVI (n = 40). The primary endpoint was frequency of documented recurrent AF, the occurrence of atrial flutter or tachycardia following a 90-day period after the index ablation and up to 12 months. The frequency of repeat ablation was determined.

RESULTS

Isolation of all PVs was documented in 98% of pts at the end of the procedure. Twelve-month F/U data could be obtained in 916 pts. A 24-h ECG registration was performed in 641 pts (70.0%); in 107 pts (16.7%) of them, recurrent AF was documented. The primary endpoint was met in 193 F/U pts (21.1%). It occurred in 80/486 F/U pts with paroxysmal AF (16.4%), and in 107/390 F/U pts with persistent AF (27.4%). Redo PVI was performed in 71 pts (7.8%), and atrial flutter ablation was performed in 12 pts (1.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

CBA PVI for paroxysmal or persistent AF can be performed at community hospitals with adequate rates of 12-month symptom freedom and arrhythmia recurrence. The study was registered at the German register of clinical studies (DRKS00016504).

Ultrasound-Guided Access Reduces Vascular Complications in Patients Undergoing Catheter Ablation for Cardiac Arrhythmias

Background: Femoral vascular access using the standard anatomic landmark-guided method is often limited by peripheral artery disease and obesity. We investigated the effect of ultrasound-guided vascular puncture (UGVP) on the rate of vascular complications in patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial or ventricular arrhythmias. Methods: The data of 479 patients (59% male, mean age 68 years ± 11 years) undergoing catheter ablation for left atrial (n = 426; 89%), right atrial (n = 28; 6%) or ventricular arrhythmias (n = 28; 6%) were analyzed. All patients were on uninterrupted oral anticoagulants and heparin was administered intravenously during the procedure. Femoral access complications were compared between patients undergoing UGVP (n = 320; 67%) and patients undergoing a conventional approach (n = 159; 33%). Complication rates were also compared between patients with a BMI of >30 kg/m2 (n = 136) and patients with a BMI < 30 kg/m2 (n = 343). Results: Total vascular access complications including mild hematomas were n = 37 (7.7%). In the conventional group n = 17 (10.7%) and in the ultrasound (US) group n = 20 (6.3%) total vascular access complications occurred (OR 0.557, 95% CI 0.283−1.096). UGVP significantly reduced the risk of hematoma > 5 cm (OR 0.382, 95% CI 0.148, 0.988) or pseudoaneurysm (OR 0.160, 95% CI 0.032, 0.804). There was no significant difference between the groups regarding retroperitoneal hematomas or AV fistulas (p > 0.05). In patients with BMI > 30 kg/m2, UGVP led to a highly relevant reduction in the risk of total vascular access complications (OR 0.138, 95% CI 0.027, 0.659), hematomas > 5 cm (OR 0.051, 95% CI 0.000, 0.466) and pseudoaneurysms (OR 0.051, 95% CI 0.000, 0.466). Conclusion: UGVP significantly reduces vascular access complications. Patients with a BMI > 30 kg/m2 seem to particularly profit from a UGVP approach.