Uwumiro Fidelis E, Oghotuoma Oghenemaro O, Eyiah Nathaniel, Ojukwu Somto, Uwaoma Gentle C, Okpujie Victory, Daboner Temabore V, Mgbecheta Justice C, Ewelugo Claire A, Agu Ifeanyi, Oshodi Omolade, Ezulike Stanley S, Ogidan Afeez O
Internal Medicine, Prime Healthcare-SRGA, Riverdale, USA.
General Internal Medicine, Walsall Healthcare NHS trust, Walsall, GBR.
Cureus. 2024 Nov 27;16(11):e74577. doi: 10.7759/cureus.74577. eCollection 2024 Nov.
Background Combining left atrial appendage closure with catheter ablation (LAACCA) has been proposed as a potential approach to improving outcomes by simultaneously addressing arrhythmia and reducing stroke risk. This study compares the in-hospital outcomes of LAACCA vs. catheter ablation (CA) alone for atrial fibrillation (AFib) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods We analyzed adult hospitalizations with HFrEF and AFib who underwent LAACCA or CA alone from the 2016-2020 nationwide inpatient sample using validated ICD-10 codes. Propensity score matching, accounting for patient-, hospital-, and procedure-level covariates, illness severity, and baseline risk of mortality, was used to alleviate bias in nonrandomized treatment assignments. The primary endpoints included all-cause in-hospital mortality, hospital stay, and hospitalization costs. Secondary endpoints included postprocedural complication rates. Prolonged hospitalization was defined as hospital stay in the top decile of hospital stay in each cohort. All statistical analyses in the study were based on weighted hospital data. Results About 233,865 HFrEF patients were hospitalized for AFib. Approximately 27,945 (11.9%) underwent LAACCA, while 205,920 (88.1%) underwent CA only. The cohort comprised mostly males (151,077; 64.6%) (mean age: 67.4; SD: 4.3). The propensity score-matched cohort comprised 18,195 LAACCAs and 18,195 CAs; all covariate imbalances were alleviated. LAACCA was associated with a higher rate of prolonged hospital stay (7.6 vs 5.6 days; P<0.001), a higher mortality rate (209 (1.1%) vs. 160 (0.9%); P=0.011), and higher mean hospital costs ($289,960 vs. $183,932; P<0.001) compared with CA alone. LAACCA was associated with a higher incidence of acute myocardial ischemia (528 (2.9%) vs. 455 (2.5%); P=0.013), complete atrioventricular block (1,200 (6.6%) vs. 892 (4.9%); P=0.004), need for implantable device therapy (1,510 (8.3%) vs. 1,348 (7.4%); P=0.017), pneumothorax (328 (1.8%) vs. 91 (0.5%); P<0.0001), hemothorax (200 (1.1%) vs. 127 (0.7%); P<0.0001), pneumonia (983 (5.4%) vs. 546 (3.0%); P<0.0001), vascular access complications (346 (1.9%) vs. 255 (1.4%); P=0.046), and septicemia (309 (1.7%) vs. 182 (1.0%); P<0.001). CA was associated with a greater incidence of cardiac tamponade (237 (1.3%) vs. 382 (2.1%); P=0.010) and femoral artery pseudoaneurysm (364 (0.2%) vs. 91 (0.5%); P<0.001). Conclusion LAACCA was correlated with higher mortality odds compared to CA alone for atrial fibrillation in HFrEF.
背景 左心耳封堵术联合导管消融术(LAACCA)已被提出作为一种潜在的方法,通过同时解决心律失常和降低中风风险来改善治疗效果。本研究比较了射血分数降低的心力衰竭(HFrEF)患者中LAACCA与单纯导管消融术(CA)治疗心房颤动(AFib)的院内结局。方法 我们使用经过验证的ICD - 10编码,分析了2016 - 2020年全国住院患者样本中因HFrEF和AFib接受LAACCA或单纯CA治疗的成年住院患者。倾向评分匹配法,考虑患者、医院和手术层面的协变量、疾病严重程度以及基线死亡风险,用于减轻非随机治疗分配中的偏差。主要终点包括全因院内死亡率、住院时间和住院费用。次要终点包括术后并发症发生率。延长住院时间定义为每个队列中住院时间处于最高十分位数的情况。本研究中的所有统计分析均基于加权医院数据。结果 约233,865例HFrEF患者因AFib住院。约27,945例(11.9%)接受了LAACCA,而205,920例(88.1%)仅接受了CA。队列中男性居多(151,077例;64.6%)(平均年龄:67.4岁;标准差:4.3)。倾向评分匹配队列包括18,195例LAACCA和18,195例CA;所有协变量不平衡均得到缓解。与单纯CA相比,LAACCA与延长住院时间的发生率更高(7.6天对5.6天;P<0.001)、死亡率更高(209例(1.1%)对160例(0.9%);P = 0.011)以及平均住院费用更高(289,960美元对183,932美元;P<0.001)相关。LAACCA与急性心肌缺血的发生率更高(528例(2.9%)对455例(2.5%);P = 0.013)、完全性房室传导阻滞(1,200例(6.6%)对892例(4.9%);P = 0.004)、需要植入式设备治疗(1,510例(8.3%)对1,348例(7.4%);P = 0.017)、气胸(328例(1.8%)对91例(0.5%);P<0.0001)、血胸(200例(