Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2022
Differences in outcomes among patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing catheter ablation with versus without intracardiac echocardiography.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Pimentel Rhea C, Rahai Neloufar, Maccioni Sonia, Khanna Rahul
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) use can lead to early detection of periprocedural complications and may improve patient outcomes by providing real-time visualization of catheter location and the treatment area during cardiac ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF).
OBJECTIVE: Examine complications and 12-month healthcare use among patients with AF undergoing CA with versus without ICE use during the procedure in a real-world setting.
METHODS: The 2015-2020 IBM MarketScan® Database was used to identify non-elderly adults (age 18-64 years) undergoing CA for AF. Patients were classified into ICE/non-ICE groups based on the presence or absence of ICE procedure codes. Patients in each group were matched on study covariates using propensity scores. Peri-procedural complications, 12-month cardiovascular (CV) or AF-related inpatient admission, repeat CA, and cardioversion were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model.
RESULTS: 1371 patients were identified in each study cohort (ICE and non-ICE) after propensity matching. Patients who had CA with ICE had a significantly lower rate of complications than those without (2.9% vs. 5.8%; p < .001). The risk of complications was 50% lower with ICE use (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34-0.72). For assessment of 12-month healthcare utilization, 1250 patients were identified in each cohort after propensity matching. ICE use was associated with a 36% lower risk of 12-month repeat ablation (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.49-0.83). No differences in CV- or AF-related inpatient admission and cardioversion were observed.
CONCLUSION: Among patients with AF, the use of ICE during an ablation procedure was associated with lower incidence of complications and repeat ablation.
OBJECTIVE: Examine complications and 12-month healthcare use among patients with AF undergoing CA with versus without ICE use during the procedure in a real-world setting.
METHODS: The 2015-2020 IBM MarketScan® Database was used to identify non-elderly adults (age 18-64 years) undergoing CA for AF. Patients were classified into ICE/non-ICE groups based on the presence or absence of ICE procedure codes. Patients in each group were matched on study covariates using propensity scores. Peri-procedural complications, 12-month cardiovascular (CV) or AF-related inpatient admission, repeat CA, and cardioversion were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model.
RESULTS: 1371 patients were identified in each study cohort (ICE and non-ICE) after propensity matching. Patients who had CA with ICE had a significantly lower rate of complications than those without (2.9% vs. 5.8%; p < .001). The risk of complications was 50% lower with ICE use (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34-0.72). For assessment of 12-month healthcare utilization, 1250 patients were identified in each cohort after propensity matching. ICE use was associated with a 36% lower risk of 12-month repeat ablation (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.49-0.83). No differences in CV- or AF-related inpatient admission and cardioversion were observed.
CONCLUSION: Among patients with AF, the use of ICE during an ablation procedure was associated with lower incidence of complications and repeat ablation.