General anesthesia is not superior to sedation in clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness for ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation

Lesion metrics and 12-month outcomes of very-high power short duration radiofrequency ablation (90W/4 s) under mild conscious sedation

INTRODUCTION

Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is often performed under general anaesthesia (GA) or deep sedation. Anaesthetic availability is limited in many centers, and deep sedation is prohibited in some countries without anaesthetic support. Very high-power short duration (vHPSD-90W/4 s) PVI using the Q-Dot catheter is generally well tolerated under mild conscious sedation (MCS) though an understanding of catheter stability and long-term effectiveness is lacking. We analyzed lesion metrics and 12-month freedom from atrial arrythmia with this approach.

METHODS

Our approach to radiofrequency (RF) PVI under MCS is standardized and includes a single catheter approach with a steerable sheath. We identified patients undergoing Q-Dot RF PVI between March 2021 and December 2022 in our center, comparing those undergoing vHPSD ablation under MCS (90W/MCS) against those undergoing 50 W ablation under GA (50 W/GA) up to 12 months of follow-up. Data were extracted from clinical records and the CARTO system.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients met our inclusion criteria (51 90W/MCS; 32 50 W/GA). Despite shorter ablation times (353 vs. 886 s; p < .001), the 90 W/MCS group received more lesions (median 87 vs. 58, p < .001), resulting in similar procedure times (149.3 vs. 149.1 min; p = .981). PVI was achieved in all cases, and first pass isolation rates were similar (left wide antral circumferential ablation [WACA] 82.4% vs. 87.5%, p = .758; right WACA 74.5% vs. 78.1%, p = .796; 90 W/MCS vs. 50 W/GA respectively). Analysis of 6647 ablation lesions found similar mean impedance drops (10.0 ± 1.9 Ω vs. 10.0 ± 2.2 Ω; p = .989) and mean contact force (14.6 ± 2.0 g vs. 15.1 ± 1.6 g; p = .248). Only median 2.5% of lesions in the 90 W/MCS cohort failed to achieve ≥ 5 Ω drop. In the 90 W/MCS group, there were no procedural related complications, and 12-month freedom from atrial arrhythmia was observed in 78.4%.

CONCLUSION

vHPSD PVI is feasible under MCS, with encouraging acute and long-term procedural outcomes. This provides a compelling option for centers with limited anaesthetic support.

Pulsed-field versus cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation-Impact of energy source on sedation and analgesia requirement

INTRODUCTION

Pulsed field ablation (PFA) represents a novel, nonthermal energy modality that can be applied for single-shot pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in atrial fibrillation (AF). Comparative data with regard to deep sedation to established single-shot modalities such as cryoballoon (CB) ablation are scarce. The aim of this study was to compare a deep sedation protocol in patients receiving PVI with either PFA or CB.

METHODS

Prospective, consecutive AF patients undergoing PVI with a pentaspline PFA catheter were compared to a retrospective CB-PVI cohort of the same timeframe. Study endpoints were the requirements of analgesics, cardiorespiratory stability, and sedation-associated complications.

RESULTS

A total of 100 PVI patients were included (PFA n = 50, CB n = 50, mean age 66 ± 10.6, 61% male patients, 65% paroxysmal AF). Requirement of propofol, midazolam, and sufentanyl was significantly higher in the PFA group compared to CB [propofol 0.14 ± 0.04 mg/kg/min in PFA vs. 0.11 ± 0.04 mg/kg/min in CB (p = .001); midazolam 0.00086 ± 0.0004 mg/kg/min in PFA vs. 0.0006295 ± 0.0003 mg/kg/min in CB (p = .002) and sufentanyl 0.0013 ± 0.0007 µg/kg/min in PFA vs. 0.0008 ± 0.0004 µg/kg/min in CB (p < .0001)]. Sedation-associated complications did not differ between both groups (PFA n = 1/50 mild aspiration pneumonia, CB n = 0/50, p > .99). Nonsedation-associated complications (PFA: n = 2/50, 4%, CB: n = 1/50, 2%, p > .99) and procedure times (PFA 75 ± 31, CB 84 ± 32 min, p = .18) did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PFA is associated with higher sedation and especially analgesia requirements. However, the safety of deep sedation does not differ to CB ablation.

Optimization of procedural sedation and analgesia during atrial fibrillation ablation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This mini-review is aimed to provide an overview and discuss procedural sedation and analgesia for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation with focus at qualification of staff, patient evaluation, monitoring, medication and postprocedural care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Sleep-disordered breathing is highly prevalent in patients with AF. Impact of often used STOP-BANG questionnaire to detect sleep-disordered breathing in AF patients is limited due to its restricted validity. Dexmedetomidine is a commonly used drug in sedation, but is shown not to be superior to propofol in sedation during AF-ablation. Alternatively use of remimazolam has characteristics that makes it a promising drug for minimal to moderate sedation for AF-ablation. High flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) has shown to reduce the risk of desaturation in adults receiving procedural sedation and analgesia.

SUMMARY

An optimal sedation strategy during AF ablation should be based on AF patient characteristics, the level of sedation needed, the procedure (duration and type of ablation) and the education and experience of the sedation provider. Patient evaluation and post procedural care are part of sedation care. More personalized care based on use of various sedation strategies and types of drugs as related to the type of AF-ablation is the way to further optimize care.

Effectiveness of a Mindfulness Meditation App Based on an Electroencephalography-Based Brain-Computer Interface in Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) can generate considerable physical and psychological discomfort under conscious sedation. App-based mindfulness meditation combined with an electroencephalography (EEG)-based brain-computer interface (BCI) shows promise as effective and accessible adjuncts in medical practice.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of a BCI-based mindfulness meditation app in improving the experience of patients with AF during RFCA.

METHODS

This single-center pilot randomized controlled trial involved 84 eligible patients with AF scheduled for RFCA, who were randomized 1:1 to the intervention and control groups. Both groups received a standardized RFCA procedure and a conscious sedative regimen. Patients in the control group were administered conventional care, while those in the intervention group received BCI-based app-delivered mindfulness meditation from a research nurse. The primary outcomes were the changes in the numeric rating scale, State Anxiety Inventory, and Brief Fatigue Inventory scores. Secondary outcomes were the differences in hemodynamic parameters (heart rate, blood pressure, and peripheral oxygen saturation), adverse events, patient-reported pain, and the doses of sedative drugs used in ablation.

RESULTS

BCI-based app-delivered mindfulness meditation, compared to conventional care, resulted in a significantly lower mean numeric rating scale (mean 4.6, SD 1.7 [app-based mindfulness meditation] vs mean 5.7, SD 2.1 [conventional care]; P=.008), State Anxiety Inventory (mean 36.7, SD 5.5 vs mean 42.3, SD 7.2; P<.001), and Brief Fatigue Inventory (mean 3.4, SD 2.3 vs mean 4.7, SD 2.2; P=.01) scores. No significant differences were observed in hemodynamic parameters or the amounts of parecoxib and dexmedetomidine used in RFCA between the 2 groups. The intervention group exhibited a significant decrease in fentanyl use compared to the control group, with a mean dose of 3.96 (SD 1.37) mcg/kg versus 4.85 (SD 1.25) mcg/kg in the control group (P=.003).The incidence of adverse events was lower in the intervention group (5/40) than in the control group (10/40), though this difference was not significant (P=.15).

CONCLUSIONS

BCI-based app-delivered mindfulness meditation effectively relieved physical and psychological discomfort and may reduce the doses of sedative medication used in RFCA for patients with AF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05306015; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05306015.

The importance of anaesthesia in atrial fibrillation ablation: Comparing conscious sedation with general anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

General anaesthesia (GA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is often preferred over conscious sedation (CS) to minimize patient discomfort and reduce the risk of map disruption from patient movement but may pose an additional risk to some patients with significant comorbidity or poor cardiac function.

METHODS

We extracted data for 300 patients who underwent AF ablation between the years 2017 and 2019 and compared the outcomes of AF ablation with CS and GA.

RESULTS

Compared to the GA group, patients were younger in the CS group (63 versus 66 years, p = 0.02), had less persistent AF (34% versus 46%, p = 0.048) and the left atrial dimension was smaller (41 versus 45 mm, p = 0.01). More patients had cryoballoon ablation (CBA) than radiofrequency (RFA) ablation in the CS than the GA group (88% CB with CS and 56% RF with GA, p < 0.01), frequency of ASA score 3-4 (higher anaesthetic risk) was less for CS than for GA (45% versus 75%, p < 0.01), and procedural duration was shorter for patients who had CS (110 versus 139 min, p < 0.001). Of the patients receiving CS, 127/182 (70%) were planned for same day discharge (SDD) and this occurred in 120 (94%) of those patients. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the groups (5.1% in GA and 6% in CS, p = 0.8). AF type was the only significant predictor of freedom from AF recurrence on multivariate analysis (HR 0.33, 0.13-0.82, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

In this study, the use of CS compared with GA for AF ablation was associated with similar outcomes and complication rates.

Comparison of the Different Anesthesia Strategies for Atrial Fibrillation Catheter Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Catheter ablation has become a widely applied intervention for treating symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF), which can be performed under general anesthesia (GA), deep sedation, or conscious sedation (CS). But the strategy of anesthesia remains controversial.

Objectives

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the advantages of GA/deep sedation and CS in AF catheter ablation, including procedural parameters and clinical outcomes.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to November 2021 for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that assessed the outcomes of catheter ablation under GA/deep sedation or CS. Ten studies were included in this meta-analysis after screening with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Heterogeneity between studies was evaluated by the I² index and the Cochran Q test, respectively; sensitivity analysis including meta-regression was performed if heterogeneity was high. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and Egger' test.

Results

This meta-analysis found GA/deep sedation to be associated with a lower recurrence rate of AF catheter ablation (p=0.03). In terms of procedural parameters, there was no significant difference between the two groups for the procedural time (p=0.35) and the fluoroscopy time (p=0.60), while the ablation time was shorter in the GA/deep sedation group (p=0.008). The total complication rate and the incidence of serious adverse events were statistically insignificant between the two groups (p=0.07 and p=0.94). Meta-regression did not suggest any covariates as an influential factor for procedural parameters and clinical outcomes.

Conclusion

GA/deep sedation may reduce the risk of recurrence after AF ablation without increasing the incidence of complications. GA/deep sedation shortens the ablation duration, although there is no statistical difference in other procedural parameters between GA/deep sedation and CS.

Worldwide sedation strategies for atrial fibrillation ablation: current status and evolution over the last decade

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) has become one of the most common procedures in the electrophysiology lab with rapidly increasing volumes. Peri-procedural anaesthesia for AF ablation varies between centres, from general anaesthesia to deep or conscious sedation. The aim of this survey was to assess current sedation practices for AF ablation worldwide and its evolution over the last decade. Centres regularly performing AF ablation responded to an online survey. A total of 297 centres participated in the survey. Overall, the median (interquartile range) number of AF ablation procedures increased from 91 (43-200) to 200 (74-350) per year (P < 0.001) between 2010 and 2019. The proportion of cryoablation also increased from 17.0% to 33.2% (P < 0.001). In 2019, the most used sedation technique was general anaesthesia (40.5%), followed by conscious sedation (32.0%) and deep sedation (27.5%). Between 2010 and 2019, the proportion of procedures performed under general anaesthesia (+4.4%; P = 0.02) and deep sedation (+4.8%; P < 0.01) increased, whereas the use of conscious sedation decreased (-9.2%; P < 0.001). The most commonly used hypnotic drugs were propofol and midazolam, whereas the most commonly used opioid drugs were remifentanyl and fentanyl. This worldwide survey shows that the number of AF ablation procedures has more than doubled over the last decade and general anaesthesia remains most commonly used. Studies comparing outcomes between different sedation strategies are needed to guide optimal decision-making.

General anesthesia is not superior to sedation in clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness for ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation

Background

The strategy of anesthesia used during ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare sedation with general anesthesia (GA) for catheter ablation of AF.

Hypothesis

The presence of AF is associated with an increased risk of stroke and heart failure and decreased quality of life and survival.

Methods

We carried out a retrospective single‐centered study with 351 patients undergoing the first ablation procedure for AF under sedation or GA. The main outcome was freedom from recurrence of AF at 1 year. The total time of staying at the ablation laboratory and procedure cost were also calculated.

Results

Freedom from atrial arrhythmia and ablation time did not differ between AF patients under sedation and GA (77.9% vs 79.9% and 42.27 ± 9.84 minutes vs 41.51 ± 9.27 minutes, respectively), while the total procedure time and cost were lower in patients who underwent sedation than GA (171.39 ± 45.09 minutes vs 202.92 ± 43.85 and 8.00 ± 7.02 CNY vs 8.79 ± 11.63 CNY, respectively).

Conclusion

GA is not superior to sedation, in terms of ablation time and freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 1 year, whereas patients with GA had more anesthesia time and procedure cost than sedation.