Safety and Feasibility of Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures In Ambulatory Surgery Centers.

ambulatory ambulatory surgery center atrial fibrillation cardiac implantable electronic device catheter ablation

Journal

Heart rhythm
ISSN: 1556-3871
Titre abrégé: Heart Rhythm
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101200317

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 Aug 2024
Historique:
received: 29 06 2024
revised: 15 07 2024
accepted: 29 07 2024
medline: 8 8 2024
pubmed: 8 8 2024
entrez: 7 8 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Despite their improved safety, majority of cardiac electrophysiology procedures, including catheter ablation (CA), are presently performed in hospital outpatient departments (HODs). This large, multicenter study investigated the safety and outcomes associated with various cardiac electrophysiology procedures performed at 6 ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), primarily during the COVID-19 pandemic under the CMS Hospitals Without Walls program. We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes from consecutive electrophysiology procedures performed in ASCs with same-day discharge, including transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), cardioversion, cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation, electrophysiology studies (EPS), and CA for atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter (AFL)/supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), ventricular premature complexes (VPCs), and AV node. Altogether, 4,037 procedures were performed, including 779 TEE/cardioversions (19.3%), 1,453 CIED implants (36.0%), 26 EPS (0.6%), and 1,779 CAs (44.1%) for AF (75.4%), AFL/SVT (18.8%), VPC (4.7%), and AV node (1.1%). Overall, 80.2% of CAs were for left-sided atrial arrhythmias (AF/atypical AFL) requiring transseptal catheterization. Left-sided VPC ablations (42.2%) were performed using a transseptal/retrograde approach. Adverse event rates were low, but comparable between CIED and CA (0.76% vs. 0.73%; P=0.93), as were the incidences of urgent/unplanned post-procedure hospitalization (0.48% vs. 0.45%; P=0.89), respectively. Moreover, the adverse event rates in ASCs versus HODs did not differ for CIED (0.76% vs. 0.65%; P=0.71) or CA (0.73% vs. 0.80%; P=0.79). The results from this large, multicenter study suggest that ASCs represent a safe and effective setting to conduct a variety of cardiac electrophysiology procedures including CA. These findings bear important implications for healthcare delivery and policy.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Despite their improved safety, majority of cardiac electrophysiology procedures, including catheter ablation (CA), are presently performed in hospital outpatient departments (HODs).
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
This large, multicenter study investigated the safety and outcomes associated with various cardiac electrophysiology procedures performed at 6 ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), primarily during the COVID-19 pandemic under the CMS Hospitals Without Walls program.
METHODS METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes from consecutive electrophysiology procedures performed in ASCs with same-day discharge, including transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), cardioversion, cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation, electrophysiology studies (EPS), and CA for atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter (AFL)/supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), ventricular premature complexes (VPCs), and AV node.
RESULTS RESULTS
Altogether, 4,037 procedures were performed, including 779 TEE/cardioversions (19.3%), 1,453 CIED implants (36.0%), 26 EPS (0.6%), and 1,779 CAs (44.1%) for AF (75.4%), AFL/SVT (18.8%), VPC (4.7%), and AV node (1.1%). Overall, 80.2% of CAs were for left-sided atrial arrhythmias (AF/atypical AFL) requiring transseptal catheterization. Left-sided VPC ablations (42.2%) were performed using a transseptal/retrograde approach. Adverse event rates were low, but comparable between CIED and CA (0.76% vs. 0.73%; P=0.93), as were the incidences of urgent/unplanned post-procedure hospitalization (0.48% vs. 0.45%; P=0.89), respectively. Moreover, the adverse event rates in ASCs versus HODs did not differ for CIED (0.76% vs. 0.65%; P=0.71) or CA (0.73% vs. 0.80%; P=0.79).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
The results from this large, multicenter study suggest that ASCs represent a safe and effective setting to conduct a variety of cardiac electrophysiology procedures including CA. These findings bear important implications for healthcare delivery and policy.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39111610
pii: S1547-5271(24)03106-0
doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.07.123
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

Arash Aryana (A)

Mercy Medical Group of Sacramento, Sacramento, California. Electronic address: a_aryana@outlook.com.

Sudarone Thihalolipavan (S)

Arizona Heart Rhythm Center, Phoenix, Arizona.

Mark E Willcox (ME)

Alaska Heart and Vascular Institute, Anchorage, Alaska.

Somya Swarup (S)

Arizona Heart Rhythm Center, Phoenix, Arizona.

Jason Zagrodzky (J)

Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute, Saint David's Medical Center, Austin, Texas.

H James Wang (HJ)

Complete Cardiology Care, Deltona, Florida.

Florentino A Lupercio (FA)

Complete Cardiology Care, Deltona, Florida.

David N Kenigsberg (DN)

Florida Heart Rhythm Specialists, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Sophia Kenigsberg (S)

Florida Heart Rhythm Specialists, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Rhea A Mahapatra (RA)

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Padraig Gearoid O'Neill (PG)

Mercy Medical Group of Sacramento, Sacramento, California.

Steven J Compton (SJ)

Alaska Heart and Vascular Institute, Anchorage, Alaska.

Andrea Natale (A)

Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute, Saint David's Medical Center, Austin, Texas.

Kenneth A Ellenbogen (KA)

VCU Pauley Heart Center of the Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.

Vijendra Swarup (V)

Arizona Heart Rhythm Center, Phoenix, Arizona.

Classifications MeSH