Tan Min Choon, Yeo Yong Hao, Ang Qi Xuan, Tan Bryan E-Xin, Tan Jian Liang, Rattanawong Pattara, Correia Joaquim, Tolat Aneesh
Department of Internal Medicine, New York Medical College at Saint Michael's Medical Center, Newark, NJ, USA.
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
J Innov Card Rhythm Manag. 2024 Jun 15;15(6):5894-5901. doi: 10.19102/icrm.2024.15066. eCollection 2024 Jun.
Knowledge of the impact of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) after catheter ablation on in-hospital outcomes and 30-day readmission remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the procedural outcomes and 30-day readmission rates among patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF who were hospitalized for AF ablation. Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, our study included patients aged ≥18 years with AF who were hospitalized and underwent catheter ablation during 2017-2020. Then, we compared the in-hospital procedural outcomes and 30-day readmission rates between patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF, respectively. Our study included 7310 index admissions for paroxysmal AF ablation and 9179 index admissions for persistent AF ablation. According to our analysis, there was no significant difference in procedural complications-namely, cerebrovascular accident, vascular complications, major bleeding requiring blood transfusion, phrenic nerve palsy, pericardial complications, and systemic embolization-between the persistent and paroxysmal AF groups. There was also no significant difference in early mortality between these groups (0.5% vs. 0.7%; = .22). Persistent AF patients had significantly higher rates of prolonged index hospitalization (9.9% vs. 7.2%; < .01) and non-home discharge (4.8% vs. 3.1%; < .01). The 30-day readmission rates were comparable in both groups (10.0% vs. 9.5%; = .34), with recurrent AF and heart failure being two of the most common causes of cardiac-related readmissions. Catheter ablation among hospitalized patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF resulted in no significant difference in procedural complications, early mortality, or 30-day readmission. This suggests that catheter ablation of AF can be performed with a relatively similar safety profile for both paroxysmal and persistent AF.
导管消融术后阵发性和持续性心房颤动(AF)对住院结局和30天再入院影响的相关知识仍然有限。本研究旨在评估因房颤消融而住院的阵发性或持续性房颤患者的手术结局和30天再入院率。利用全国再入院数据库,我们的研究纳入了2017 - 2020年期间年龄≥18岁、因房颤住院并接受导管消融的患者。然后,我们分别比较了阵发性和持续性房颤患者的住院手术结局和30天再入院率。我们的研究包括7310例阵发性房颤消融的首次入院病例和9179例持续性房颤消融的首次入院病例。根据我们的分析,持续性房颤组和阵发性房颤组在手术并发症方面没有显著差异,手术并发症包括脑血管意外、血管并发症、需要输血的大出血、膈神经麻痹、心包并发症和全身性栓塞。两组之间的早期死亡率也没有显著差异(0.5%对0.7%;P = 0.22)。持续性房颤患者的首次住院时间延长率(9.9%对7.2%;P < 0.01)和非回家出院率(4.8%对3.1%;P < 0.01)显著更高。两组的30天再入院率相当(10.0%对9.5%;P = 0.34),房颤复发和心力衰竭是心脏相关再入院的两个最常见原因。阵发性或持续性房颤住院患者的导管消融在手术并发症、早期死亡率或30天再入院方面没有显著差异。这表明,阵发性和持续性房颤进行导管消融时,安全性相对相似。