Mahmoodi Ehsan, Leitch Jim, Davies Allan, Leigh Lucy, Oldmeadow Christopher, Dwivedi Jovita, Boyle Andrew, Jackson Nicholas
The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Cardiovascular Department, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, NSW, Australia; The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 2023 Mar-Apr;23(2):47-52. doi: 10.1016/j.ipej.2022.12.001. Epub 2022 Dec 10.
General anaesthesia (GA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is often preferred over conscious sedation (CS) to minimize patient discomfort and reduce the risk of map disruption from patient movement but may pose an additional risk to some patients with significant comorbidity or poor cardiac function.
We extracted data for 300 patients who underwent AF ablation between the years 2017 and 2019 and compared the outcomes of AF ablation with CS and GA.
Compared to the GA group, patients were younger in the CS group (63 versus 66 years, p = 0.02), had less persistent AF (34% versus 46%, p = 0.048) and the left atrial dimension was smaller (41 versus 45 mm, p = 0.01). More patients had cryoballoon ablation (CBA) than radiofrequency (RFA) ablation in the CS than the GA group (88% CB with CS and 56% RF with GA, p < 0.01), frequency of ASA score 3-4 (higher anaesthetic risk) was less for CS than for GA (45% versus 75%, p < 0.01), and procedural duration was shorter for patients who had CS (110 versus 139 min, p < 0.001). Of the patients receiving CS, 127/182 (70%) were planned for same day discharge (SDD) and this occurred in 120 (94%) of those patients. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the groups (5.1% in GA and 6% in CS, p = 0.8). AF type was the only significant predictor of freedom from AF recurrence on multivariate analysis (HR 0.33, 0.13-0.82, p = 0.018).
In this study, the use of CS compared with GA for AF ablation was associated with similar outcomes and complication rates.
心房颤动(AF)消融术采用全身麻醉(GA)通常比清醒镇静(CS)更受青睐,以最大程度减少患者不适并降低因患者移动导致标测中断的风险,但对于一些合并症严重或心功能较差的患者可能会带来额外风险。
我们提取了2017年至2019年间接受AF消融术的300例患者的数据,并比较了CS和GA用于AF消融术的结果。
与GA组相比,CS组患者更年轻(63岁对66岁,p = 0.02),持续性AF更少(34%对46%,p = 0.048),左心房直径更小(41mm对45mm,p = 0.01)。与GA组相比,CS组接受冷冻球囊消融(CBA)的患者多于射频消融(RFA)(CS组88%为CBA,GA组56%为RFA,p < 0.01),CS组美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)评分3 - 4级(麻醉风险较高)的频率低于GA组(45%对75%,p < 0.01),且接受CS的患者手术时间更短(110分钟对139分钟,p < 0.001)。在接受CS的患者中,127/182(70%)计划当日出院(SDD),其中120例(94%)实现了当日出院。两组并发症发生率无显著差异(GA组为5.1%,CS组为6%,p = 0.8)。多因素分析显示,AF类型是AF复发自由度唯一的显著预测因素(风险比0.33,0.13 - 0.82,p = 0.018)。
在本研究中,AF消融术采用CS与GA相比,结果和并发症发生率相似。