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

Management of anesthesia for procedures in the cardiac electrophysiology laboratory

The complexity of cardiac electrophysiology procedures has increased significantly during the past 3 decades. Anesthesia requirements of these procedures can differ on the basis of patient- and procedure-specific factors. This manuscript outlines various anesthesia strategies for cardiac implantable electronic devices and electrophysiology procedures, including preprocedural, procedural, and postprocedural management. A team-based approach with collaboration between cardiac electrophysiologists and anesthesiologists is required with careful preprocedural and intraprocedural planning. Given the recent advances in electrophysiology, there is a need for specialized cardiac electrophysiology anesthesia care to improve the efficacy and safety of the procedures.

2023 Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand Expert Position Statement on Catheter and Surgical Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) has increased exponentially in many developed countries, including Australia and New Zealand. This Expert Position Statement on Catheter and Surgical Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation from the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ) recognises healthcare factors, expertise and expenditure relevant to the Australian and New Zealand healthcare environments including considerations of potential implications for First Nations Peoples. The statement is cognisant of international advice but tailored to local conditions and populations, and is intended to be used by electrophysiologists, cardiologists and general physicians across all disciplines caring for patients with AF. They are also intended to provide guidance to healthcare facilities seeking to establish or maintain catheter ablation for AF.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific HRS, and the Latin American HRS.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society .

Laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal intubation as general anesthesia airway managements for atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: a comparative analysis based on propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

The current evidence on the use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) as an airway management technique for general anesthesia (GA) during atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation (CA) is insufficient. This study aims to compare the feasibility, safety, and clinical benefits of LMA and endotracheal intubation (ETI) for airway management in AF CA.

METHODS

One hundred fifty-two consecutive patients with AF who underwent CA under GA were included and divided into two groups based on different airway management methods (66 in the LMA group, 86 in the ETI group). After propensity score matching, a final analysis cohort of 132 patients was obtained to compare procedural parameters, adverse events, and prognosis between the two groups.

RESULTS

The LMA group exhibited significantly shorter total procedural time (p = 0.039), anesthesia induction time (p = 0.015), and recovery time (p = 0.006) compared to the ETI group. The mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate were significantly lower in the LMA group during extubation and 1-min post-extubation (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the LMA group demonstrated lower MAP levels during intubation (p = 0.029). The incidences of intraoperative hypotension (p = 0.017) and bradycardia (p = 0.032) were significantly lower in the LMA group. The incidences of delayed recovery or delirium (p = 0.027), laryngeal or airway injury (p = 0.016), cough or bucking (p = 0.001), and sore throat (p < 0.001) were significantly lower in the LMA group. There were no statistically significant differences in catheter stability parameters and sinus rhythm maintenance rates between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

LMA is feasible, safe, and effective in AF CA as an optimized airway management technique for GA.

Investigating Deep Sedation With Intravenous Ketamine in Spontaneous Respiration During Pulsed-Field Ablation

OBJECTIVES

The authors report their experience of a protocol for deep sedation with ketamine in spontaneous respiration during the pulsed-field ablation (PFA) of atrial fibrillation (AF).

DESIGN

Observational, prospective, nonrandomized fashion.

SETTING

Single-center hospitalized patients.

PARTICIPANTS

All consecutive patients undergoing PFA of AF.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients undergoing deep sedation with intravenous ketamine.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The authors' sedation protocol involves the intravenous administration of fentanyl (1.5 µg/kg) and midazolam (2 mg) at low doses before local anesthesia with lidocaine. A ketamine adjunct (1 mg/kg) in 5-minute boluses was injected about 5 minutes before the first PFA delivery. The authors enrolled 117 patients (age = 59 ± 10 y, 74.4% males, body mass index = 27.6 ± 5 kg/m2, fluoroscopy time = 24 ± 14 minutes, skin-to-skin time = 80 ± 40 minutes and PFA LA dwell time = 24 ± 7 minutes). By the end of the procedure, pulmonary vein isolation had been achieved in all patients using PFA alone. The mean time under sedation was 54.9 ± 6 minutes, with 92 patients (79%) being sedated for <1 hour. A satisfactory Ramsay Sedation Scale level before ketamine administration was achieved in all patients, except one (80.3% of the patients with rank 3; 18.4% with rank 2). In all procedures, the satisfaction level was found acceptable by both the patient and the primary operator (satisfactory in 98.2% of cases). All patients achieved a Numeric Rating Scale for Pain ≤3 (none or mild). No major procedure or anesthesia-related complications were reported.

CONCLUSION

The authors' standardized sedation protocol with the administration of drugs with rapid onset and pharmacologic offset at low doses was safe and effective, with an optimal degree of patient and operator satisfaction.