General anesthesia is not superior to sedation in clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness for ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND

The strategy of anesthesia used during ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare sedation with general anesthesia (GA) for catheter ablation of AF.

HYPOTHESIS: The presence of AF is associated with an increased risk of stroke and heart failure and decreased quality of life and survival.

METHODS

We carried out a retrospective single-centered study with 351 patients undergoing the first ablation procedure for AF under sedation or GA. The main outcome was freedom from recurrence of AF at 1 year. The total time of staying at the ablation laboratory and procedure cost were also calculated.

RESULTS

Freedom from atrial arrhythmia and ablation time did not differ between AF patients under sedation and GA (77.9% vs 79.9% and 42.27 ± 9.84 minutes vs 41.51 ± 9.27 minutes, respectively), while the total procedure time and cost were lower in patients who underwent sedation than GA (171.39 ± 45.09 minutes vs 202.92 ± 43.85 and 8.00 ± 7.02 CNY vs 8.79 ± 11.63 CNY, respectively).

CONCLUSION

GA is not superior to sedation, in terms of ablation time and freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 1 year, whereas patients with GA had more anesthesia time and procedure cost than sedation.