BACKGROUND: Head-to-head comparative data for the postoperative care of patients undergoing left atrial ablation procedures are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate complication and readmission rates between patients undergoing same-day (SD) or next-day (ND) discharges for ablative procedures in the left atrium, primarily atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: Two electrophysiology centers simultaneously perform left atrial ablations with differing discharge strategies. We identified all patients who underwent left atrial ablation from August 2017 to August 2019 (n = 409) undergoing either SD (n = 210) or ND (n = 199) discharge protocols. We analyzed any clinical events that resulted in procedural abortion, extended hospitalization, or readmission within 72 hours. RESULTS: The primary endpoint of complication and readmission rate was similar between SD and ND discharge (14.3% vs 12.6%, p = 0.665). Rates of complications categorized as major (2.4% vs 3.0%, p = 0. 776) and minor (11.9% vs 9.5%, p = 0.524) were also similar.Multivariable regression modeling revealed no significant correlation between discharge strategy and complication/readmission occurrence (OR 1.565 [0.754 - 3.248], p = 0.23), but a positive association of hypertension and procedure duration (OR 3.428 [1.436 - 8.184], p = 0.006) and (OR 1.01 [1 - 1.019], p = 0.046) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Left atrial ablation complication and readmission rates were similar between SD and ND discharge practices. Hypertension and procedural duration were associated with increased complication rates irrespective of discharge strategy. These data, which represent the first side-by-side comparison of discharge strategy, suggests same-day discharge is safe and feasible for left atrial ablation procedures.
BACKGROUND: Head-to-head comparative data for the postoperative care of patients undergoing left atrial ablation procedures are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate complication and readmission rates between patients undergoing same-day (SD) or next-day (ND) discharges for ablative procedures in the left atrium, primarily atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: Two electrophysiology centers simultaneously perform left atrial ablations with differing discharge strategies. We identified all patients who underwent left atrial ablation from August 2017 to August 2019 (n = 409) undergoing either SD (n = 210) or ND (n = 199) discharge protocols. We analyzed any clinical events that resulted in procedural abortion, extended hospitalization, or readmission within 72 hours. RESULTS: The primary endpoint of complication and readmission rate was similar between SD and ND discharge (14.3% vs 12.6%, p = 0.665). Rates of complications categorized as major (2.4% vs 3.0%, p = 0. 776) and minor (11.9% vs 9.5%, p = 0.524) were also similar.Multivariable regression modeling revealed no significant correlation between discharge strategy and complication/readmission occurrence (OR 1.565 [0.754 - 3.248], p = 0.23), but a positive association of hypertension and procedure duration (OR 3.428 [1.436 - 8.184], p = 0.006) and (OR 1.01 [1 - 1.019], p = 0.046) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Left atrial ablation complication and readmission rates were similar between SD and ND discharge practices. Hypertension and procedural duration were associated with increased complication rates irrespective of discharge strategy. These data, which represent the first side-by-side comparison of discharge strategy, suggests same-day discharge is safe and feasible for left atrial ablation procedures.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ablation; Atrial fibrillation; Complications; Discharge strategy; Hospitalization; Left atrial
Authors: Dimpi Patel; Prasant Mohanty; Luigi Di Biase; Javier E Sanchez; Mazen H Shaheen; J David Burkhardt; Mohammed Bassouni; Jennifer Cummings; Yan Wang; William R Lewis; Alberto Diaz; Rodney P Horton; Salwa Beheiry; Richard Hongo; G Joseph Gallinghouse; Jason D Zagrodzky; Shane M Bailey; Amin Al-Ahmad; Paul Wang; Robert A Schweikert; Andrea Natale Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2009-10-23 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Carina Blomström-Lundqvist; Sigfus Gizurarson; Jonas Schwieler; Steen M Jensen; Lennart Bergfeldt; Göran Kennebäck; Aigars Rubulis; Helena Malmborg; Pekka Raatikainen; Stefan Lönnerholm; Niklas Höglund; David Mörtsell Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Laurent M Haegeli; Firat Duru; Evan E Lockwood; Thomas F Lüscher; Laurence D Sterns; Paul G Novak; Richard A Leather Journal: Postgrad Med J Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.401
Authors: Yoav Michowitz; Michael Rahkovich; Hakan Oral; Erica S Zado; Roland Tilz; Silke John; Arnaud Denis; Luigi Di Biase; Roger A Winkle; Evgeny N Mikhaylov; Jeremy N Ruskin; Yan Yao; Mark E Josephson; Hildegard Tanner; John M Miller; Jean Champagne; Paolo Della Bella; Koichiro Kumagai; Pascal Defaye; David Luria; Dmitry S Lebedev; Andrea Natale; Pierre Jais; Gerhard Hindricks; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Francis E Marchlinski; Fred Morady; Bernard Belhassen Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2014-02-11
Authors: David D Spragg; Darshan Dalal; Aamir Cheema; Daniel Scherr; Karuna Chilukuri; Alan Cheng; Charles A Henrikson; Joseph E Marine; Ronald D Berger; Jun Dong; Hugh Calkins Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2008-05-05
Authors: Aakriti Gupta; Tharani Perera; Anand Ganesan; Thomas Sullivan; Dennis H Lau; Kurt C Roberts-Thomson; Anthony G Brooks; Prashanthan Sanders Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2013-11-15