INTRODUCTION: Moderate sedation (MS) during cryoballoon ablation (CBA) avoids risks of general anesthesia (GA) and improves electrophysiology (EP) lab throughput. However, one barrier to the use of MS is the potential for patient discomfort. The objective of this study was to compare patient-reported outcome measures following CBA for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (pAF) under MS and GA. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients undergoing a first CBA for pAF under GA or MS were prospectively enrolled. The sedation method was assigned based on patient and provider preference, and perceived airway risk. The primary outcomes were quality of recovery (measured using a validated 40 question survey; QoR-40) and likelihood to recommend (LTR) the procedure and sedation method (measured by Likert scale). Secondary outcomes were acute pulmonary vein (PV) isolation rate, procedure, fluoroscopy and ablation times, and complication rates. Forty-seven GA and 53 MS patients were included. The mean age was 64.9 ± 9.4 years and mean CHA2 DS2 -VASc score was 2.0 ± 1.4. QoR-40 scores were 184.6 ± 16.4 for GA and 187.6 ± 10.2 for MS (P = .28). LTR responses were similar between groups. Mean procedure times were 148.2 ± 56.0 minutes for GA and 129.4 ± 31.4 minutes for MS (P = .038). Fluoroscopy and ablation times were similar between groups. A total of 100% (409/409) of PVs were acutely isolated. One hemopericardium occurred in the MS group requiring pericardiocentesis. CONCLUSION: MS for CBA offers an alternative to GA that is safe and well-tolerated by patients with comparable success rates and improved EP lab throughput.
INTRODUCTION: Moderate sedation (MS) during cryoballoon ablation (CBA) avoids risks of general anesthesia (GA) and improves electrophysiology (EP) lab throughput. However, one barrier to the use of MS is the potential for patient discomfort. The objective of this study was to compare patient-reported outcome measures following CBA for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (pAF) under MS and GA. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients undergoing a first CBA for pAF under GA or MS were prospectively enrolled. The sedation method was assigned based on patient and provider preference, and perceived airway risk. The primary outcomes were quality of recovery (measured using a validated 40 question survey; QoR-40) and likelihood to recommend (LTR) the procedure and sedation method (measured by Likert scale). Secondary outcomes were acute pulmonary vein (PV) isolation rate, procedure, fluoroscopy and ablation times, and complication rates. Forty-seven GA and 53 MS patients were included. The mean age was 64.9 ± 9.4 years and mean CHA2 DS2 -VASc score was 2.0 ± 1.4. QoR-40 scores were 184.6 ± 16.4 for GA and 187.6 ± 10.2 for MS (P = .28). LTR responses were similar between groups. Mean procedure times were 148.2 ± 56.0 minutes for GA and 129.4 ± 31.4 minutes for MS (P = .038). Fluoroscopy and ablation times were similar between groups. A total of 100% (409/409) of PVs were acutely isolated. One hemopericardium occurred in the MS group requiring pericardiocentesis. CONCLUSION: MS for CBA offers an alternative to GA that is safe and well-tolerated by patients with comparable success rates and improved EP lab throughput.
Authors: Jason Andrade; Paul Khairy; Marc Dubuc; Marc W Deyell; Denis Roy; Mario Talajic; Bernard Thibault; Peter G Guerra; Léna Rivard; Laurent Macle Journal: Europace Date: 2013-08-04 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Giacomo Mugnai; Gian-Battista Chierchia; Carlo de Asmundis; Juan Sieira-Moret; Giulio Conte; Lucio Capulzini; Kristel Wauters; Moises Rodriguez-Mañero; Giacomo Di Giovanni; Giannis Baltogiannis; Giuseppe Ciconte; Yukio Saitoh; Justo Juliá; Pedro Brugada Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Hugh Calkins; Karl Heinz Kuck; Riccardo Cappato; Josep Brugada; A John Camm; Shih-Ann Chen; Harry J G Crijns; Ralph J Damiano; D Wyn Davies; John DiMarco; James Edgerton; Kenneth Ellenbogen; Michael D Ezekowitz; David E Haines; Michel Haissaguerre; Gerhard Hindricks; Yoshito Iesaka; Warren Jackman; José Jalife; Pierre Jais; Jonathan Kalman; David Keane; Young-Hoon Kim; Paulus Kirchhof; George Klein; Hans Kottkamp; Koichiro Kumagai; Bruce D Lindsay; Moussa Mansour; Francis E Marchlinski; Patrick M McCarthy; J Lluis Mont; Fred Morady; Koonlawee Nademanee; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Andrea Natale; Stanley Nattel; Douglas L Packer; Carlo Pappone; Eric Prystowsky; Antonio Raviele; Vivek Reddy; Jeremy N Ruskin; Richard J Shemin; Hsuan-Ming Tsao; David Wilber Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Jeremiah Wasserlauf; Bradley P Knight; Zhi Li; Adin-Cristian Andrei; Rishi Arora; Alexandru B Chicos; Jeffrey J Goldberger; Susan S Kim; Albert C Lin; Nishant Verma; Martha M Bohn; Rod S Passman Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Jeremiah Wasserlauf; Daniel J Pelchovitz; John Rhyner; Nishant Verma; Martha Bohn; Zhi Li; Rishi Arora; Alexandru B Chicos; Jeffrey J Goldberger; Susan S Kim; Albert C Lin; Bradley P Knight; Rod S Passman Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Karl-Heinz Kuck; Josep Brugada; Alexander Fürnkranz; Andreas Metzner; Feifan Ouyang; K R Julian Chun; Arif Elvan; Thomas Arentz; Kurt Bestehorn; Stuart J Pocock; Jean-Paul Albenque; Claudio Tondo Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Miki Yokokawa; Aman Chugh; Anna Dubovoy; Milo Engoren; Krit Jongnarangsin; Rakesh Latchamsetty; Hamid Ghanbari; Mohammed Saeed; Ryan Cunnane; Thomas Crawford; Michael Ghannam; Jackson Liang; Robert Keast; David Karpenko; Frank Bogun; Frank Pelosi; Timur Dubovoy; Mathew Caldwell; Fred Morady; Hakan Oral Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2022-06-11 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Thomas Roxburgh; Anthony Li; Charles Guenancia; Patrice Pernollet; Claire Bouleti; Benjamin Alos; Matthieu Gras; Thomas Kerforne; Denis Frasca; François Le Gal; Luc Christiaens; Bruno Degand; Rodrigue Garcia Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 5.428