MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2024
Outcomes of atrial fibrillation ablation in community hospitals with and without onsite cardiothoracic surgery availability.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ola Olatunde, Gharacholou S Michael, Deshmukh Abhishek J, Valverde Arturo M, Scott Christopher G, Lee Alexander T, Del-Carpio Munoz Freddy
Аннотация
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.
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.