A comparison of clinical outcomes and cost of radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with monitored anesthesia care versus general anesthesia.

INTRODUCTION: Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) or general anesthesia (GA) can be used during catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, each approach may have advantages and disadvantages with variability in operator preferences. The optimal approach has not been well established. The purpose of this study was to compare procedural efficacy, safety, clinical outcomes, and cost of CA for AF performed with MAC versus GA. METHODS: The study population consisted of 810 consecutive patients (mean age: 63 ± 10 years, paroxysmal AF: 48%) who underwent a first CA for AF. All patients completed a preprocedural evaluation by the anesthesiologists. Among the 810 patients, MAC was used in 534 (66%) and GA in 276 (34%). Ten patients (1.5%) had to convert to GA during the CA. RESULTS: Although the total anesthesia care was longer with GA particularly in patients with persistent AF, CA was shorter by 5 min with GA than MAC (p < 0.01). Prevalence of perioperative complications was similar between the two groups (4% vs. 4%, p = 0.89). There was no atrioesophageal fistula with either approach. GA was associated with a small, ~7% increase in total charges due to longer anesthesia care. During 43 ± 17 months of follow-up after a single ablation procedure, 271/534 patients (51%) in the MAC and 129/276 (47%) patients in the GA groups were in sinus rhythm without concomitant antiarrhythmic drug therapy (p = 0.28). CONCLUSION: With the participation of an anesthesiologist, and proper preoperative assessment, CA of AF using GA or MAC has similar efficacy and safety.

Ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation using a second-generation cryoballoon catheter or contact-force sensing radiofrequency ablation catheter: A comparison of costs and long-term clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Although noninferiority of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) and radiofrequency catheter ablation for antral pulmonary vein isolation (APVI) has been reported in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF), it is not clear whether contact force sensing (CF-RFA) and CBA with the second-generation catheter have similar procedural costs and long-term outcomes. The objective of this study is to compare the long-term efficacy and cost implications of CBA and CF-RFA in patients with PAF. METHODS AND RESULTS: A first APVI was performed in 146 consecutive patients (age: 63 ± 10 years, men: 95 [65%], left atrial diameter: 42 ± 6 mm) with PAF using CBA (71) or CF-RFA (75). Clinical outcomes and procedural costs were compared. The mean procedure time was significantly shorter with CBA than with CF-RFA (98 ± 39 vs. 158 ± 47 minutes, P < 0.0001). Despite a higher equipment cost in the CBA than the CF-RFA group, the total procedure cost was similar between the two groups (P = 0.26), primarily driven by a shorter procedure duration that resulted in a lower anesthesia cost. At 25 ± 5 months after a single ablation procedure, 51 patients (72%) in the CBA, and 55 patients (73%) in the CF-RFA groups remained free from atrial arrhythmias without antiarrhythmic drug therapy (P = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: The procedure duration was approximately 60 minutes shorter with CBA than CF-RFA. The procedural costs were similar with both approaches. At 2 years after a single procedure, CBA and CF-RFA have similar single-procedure efficacies of 72-73%.