Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Real-world data can help medical administrators, physicians, and payers make evidence-based decisions regarding treatment choices. The objective of this study was to compare real-world safety outcomes with the latest catheter technologies used for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF).
Methods
The Vizient Health Systems database, a large US hospital database, was used to compare acute complications in AF ablation with the contact force sensing THERMOCOOL SMARTTOUCH® Catheter or the THERMOCOOL SMARTTOUCH® SF Catheter (ST) versus the second-generation Arctic Front Advance™ Cryoablation Catheter (CB2) between September 2015 and June 2017. The primary outcome was a composite safety endpoint of acute ablation-related complications defined via ICD-10 diagnosis and procedure codes, including tamponade and other pericardial events, respiratory complications, stroke, cerebral or pre-cerebral occlusion/stenosis without infarction, vascular access complications, hemorrhage, phrenic nerve injury, myocardial infarction, and pulmonary embolism.
Results
In total, 1473 ablations met all inclusion criteria (407 ST, 1066 CB2). Ablations for paroxysmal AF (PAF) had a lower complication rate than ablations for persistent AF (PsAF) (6.1% vs. 7.3%), as did ablations with ST compared with CB2 within each AF type (PAF 6.0% vs. 6.1%, PsAF 6.3% vs. 7.8%). Neither ablation catheter nor AF type was statistically significant after controlling for site volume, patient age, and comorbid conditions (ST vs. CB2: OR 0.86, p = 0.5544; PsAF vs. PAF: OR 1.08, p = 0.7376).
Conclusion
Acute ablation-related complication rates were low and were not significantly associated with catheter technology. Increased risk of complication was attributable to low-volume sites and baseline patient characteristics.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Physiology (medical),Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
Reference23 articles.
1. Khavjou O, Phelps D, Leib A & RTI International. Projections of cardiovascular disease prevalence and costs: 2015–2035. Technical report prepared for the American Heart Association; 2016. https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@adv/documents/downloadable/ucm_491513.pdf. Accessed Aug 2018.
2. Nakamura K, Naito S, Sasaki T, Nakano M, Minami K, Nakatani Y, et al. Randomized comparison of contact force-guided versus conventional circumferential pulmonary vein isolation of atrial fibrillation: prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of electrical reconnections and clinical outcomes. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2015;44(3):235–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-015-0056-7.
3. Kimura M, Sasaki S, Owada S, Horiuchi D, Sasaki K, Itoh T, et al. Comparison of lesion formation between contact force-guided and non-guided circumferential pulmonary vein isolation: a prospective, randomized study. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11(6):984–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.03.019.
4. Pandya B, Sheikh A, Spagnola J, Bekheit S, Lafferty J, Kowalski M. Safety and efficacy of second-generation versus first-generation cryoballoons for treatment of atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of current evidence. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2016;45(1):49–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-015-0075-4.
5. Conti S, Moltrasio M, Fassini G, Tundo F, Riva S, Dello Russo A, et al. Comparison between first- and second-generation cryoballoon for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation. Cardiol Res Pract. 2016;2016:5106127. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5106127.