Rajkumar Doshi1, Ashish Kumar2, Mariam Shariff2, Devina Adalja3, Krunalkumar Patel4, Kirtenkumar Patel5, Rupak Desai6, Nageshwara Gullapalli1, Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula7. 1. Department of Internal Medicine University of Nevada Reno School of Medicine Reno NV USA. 2. Department of Critical Care Medicine St John's Medical College Hospital Bengaluru India. 3. Department of Medicine GMERS Gotri Medical College Vadodara India. 4. Department of Medicine St Mary Medical Center Langhorn PA USA. 5. Department of Cardiology North Shore University Hospital Manhasset NY USA. 6. Department of Cardiology Atlanta VA Medical Center Decatur GA USA. 7. Section of Interventional Cardiology Division of Cardiovascular Medicine Department of Medicine Emory University School of Medicine Atlanta GA USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of research comparing procedural outcomes of surgical ablation (SA) and catheter ablation (CA) among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF). The main objective was to compare the short-term procedural outcomes of SA and CA in patients with HFrEF. METHODS: We used the national inpatient sample to identify hospitalizations over 18 years with HFrEF hospitalization and AF, and undergoing SA and CA from 2016 to 2017. Furthermore, the clinical outcomes of SA vs CA in AF stratified as nonparoxysmal and paroxysmal were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 1,770 HFrEF hospitalizations with AF who underwent SA and 1,620 HFrEF hospitalizations with AF who underwent CA were included in the analysis. Hospitalizations with CA had higher baseline comorbidities. The in-hospital mortality among HFrEF with AF undergoing SA as compared with CA was similar (2.8% vs 1.9%, respectively, adjusted P-value 0.09). Hospitalizations with SA had a significantly longer length of hospital stay, a higher percentage of postprocedural, and cardiac complications. In HFrEF hospitalizations with nonparoxysmal AF, SA as compared with CA was associated with a higher percentage of in-hospital mortality (2.4% vs 1%, adjusted P-value <.05), a longer length of stay, a higher cost of treatment, and a higher percentage of cardiac complications. CONCLUSION: CA is associated with lower in-hospital adverse procedural outcomes as compared with SA among HFrEF hospitalizations with AF. Further research with freedom from AF as one of the outcome is needed between two groups for HFrEF.
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of research comparing procedural outcomes of surgical ablation (SA) and catheter ablation (CA) among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF). The main objective was to compare the short-term procedural outcomes of SA and CA in patients with HFrEF. METHODS: We used the national inpatient sample to identify hospitalizations over 18 years with HFrEF hospitalization and AF, and undergoing SA and CA from 2016 to 2017. Furthermore, the clinical outcomes of SA vs CA in AF stratified as nonparoxysmal and paroxysmal were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 1,770 HFrEF hospitalizations with AF who underwent SA and 1,620 HFrEF hospitalizations with AF who underwent CA were included in the analysis. Hospitalizations with CA had higher baseline comorbidities. The in-hospital mortality among HFrEF with AF undergoing SA as compared with CA was similar (2.8% vs 1.9%, respectively, adjusted P-value 0.09). Hospitalizations with SA had a significantly longer length of hospital stay, a higher percentage of postprocedural, and cardiac complications. In HFrEF hospitalizations with nonparoxysmal AF, SA as compared with CA was associated with a higher percentage of in-hospital mortality (2.4% vs 1%, adjusted P-value <.05), a longer length of stay, a higher cost of treatment, and a higher percentage of cardiac complications. CONCLUSION: CA is associated with lower in-hospital adverse procedural outcomes as compared with SA among HFrEF hospitalizations with AF. Further research with freedom from AF as one of the outcome is needed between two groups for HFrEF.
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Hugh Calkins; Lin Y Chen; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Karen L Furie; Paul A Heidenreich; Katherine T Murray; Julie B Shea; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Paul Muntner; Alvaro Alonso; Marcio S Bittencourt; Clifton W Callaway; April P Carson; Alanna M Chamberlain; Alexander R Chang; Susan Cheng; Sandeep R Das; Francesca N Delling; Luc Djousse; Mitchell S V Elkind; Jane F Ferguson; Myriam Fornage; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Sadiya S Khan; Brett M Kissela; Kristen L Knutson; Tak W Kwan; Daniel T Lackland; Tené T Lewis; Judith H Lichtman; Chris T Longenecker; Matthew Shane Loop; Pamela L Lutsey; Seth S Martin; Kunihiro Matsushita; Andrew E Moran; Michael E Mussolino; Martin O'Flaherty; Ambarish Pandey; Amanda M Perak; Wayne D Rosamond; Gregory A Roth; Uchechukwu K A Sampson; Gary M Satou; Emily B Schroeder; Svati H Shah; Nicole L Spartano; Andrew Stokes; David L Tirschwell; Connie W Tsao; Mintu P Turakhia; Lisa B VanWagner; John T Wilkins; Sally S Wong; Salim S Virani Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Paulus Kirchhof; Stefano Benussi; Dipak Kotecha; Anders Ahlsson; Dan Atar; Barbara Casadei; Manuel Castella; Hans-Christoph Diener; Hein Heidbuchel; Jeroen Hendriks; Gerhard Hindricks; Antonis S Manolis; Jonas Oldgren; Bogdan Alexandru Popescu; Ulrich Schotten; Bart Van Putte; Panagiotis Vardas Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-08-27 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Maciej Faryan; Piotr Buchta; Oskar Kowalski; Maciej T Wybraniec; Daniel Cieśla; Krzysztof Myrda; Anna Wnuk-Wojnar; Zbigniew Kalarus; Mariusz Gąsior; Katarzyna Mizia-Stec Journal: Kardiol Pol Date: 2020-04-02 Impact factor: 3.108