A Meta-Analysis Comparing General Anesthesia, Deep Sedation, and Conscious Sedation for Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation

Abstract

Background: The optimal anesthesia strategy during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) remains controversial. This meta-analysis compared general anesthesia, deep sedation, and conscious sedation in terms of procedural time and complications. Methods: Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. Mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed- and random-effect models on the basis of the heterogeneity among studies, as assessed by I2 statistics. The random-effect model was used when the heterogeneity was high (I2 > 50%). Publication bias was evaluated through funnel plots and Egger's tests. Results: Sixteen studies were included in this study. No significant difference was observed in procedural time between the general anesthesia and conscious sedation groups (MD: –8.1479 minutes, 95% CI: from –27.6836 to 11.3878, seven studies). Deep sedation was associated with procedural time (MD: 131.8436 minutes, 95% CI: 99.6540–164.0332, eight studies). The rate of serious intraprocedural complications was 1.5% (95% CI: 1.2%–1.9%) with deep sedation (seven studies). Conscious/analog sedation had 26%–29% higher odds of perioperative complications than general anesthesia (OR: 1.2622, 95% CI: 1.0273–1.5507, nine studies). Significant heterogeneity was present across studies. Conclusions: This meta-analysis found no significant difference in procedural time between general anesthesia and conscious sedation for AF ablation. Deep sedation was associated with longer procedural time. Conscious sedation appeared to have a higher risk of perioperative complications than general anesthesia. Further randomized trials are warranted to determine the optimal anesthesia strategy.