P1028Impact of atrial fibrillation ablation procedural volume on complication and recurrence rate across European centers. An ESC EORP registry: atrial fibrillation long-term

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Pagourelias ◽  
V Vassilikos ◽  
C Blomstrom-Lundqvist ◽  
J Kautzner ◽  
A P Maggioni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Recurrence Rate ◽  
Complication Rate ◽  
Cardiovascular Complications ◽  
Safe Procedure ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Af Ablation ◽  
Procedural Volume ◽  
One Year

Abstract Background Catheter ablation has emerged as an effective therapy in patients with symptomatic and drug refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). Despite high success rates of the method, there is still heterogeneity of outcomes and complication rate across Europe. The impact of the annual procedural volume per center on success and complication rate of AF ablation, based on real-life data, has not been addressed till now. Purpose The aim of the study was to investigate if center AF ablation volume might be associated with one-year success or complication rate after the procedure. Methods Data for this analysis were extracted from the European AF Ablation Long-Term Study, a prospective registry designed to describe the clinical epidemiology of patients undergoing AF ablation. Based on 25th and 75th percentiles of AF ablation numbers performed, the participating centers were classified into high volume (HV) (≥250 procedures/year), medium volume (MV) (<250 and ≥58/year) and low volume (LV) (<58/year). One-year success was defined as patient survival free from any atrial arrhythmia, from the end of the 3-month blanking period to 12 months following the ablation procedure. Results A total of 91 centers in 26 European countries enrolled 3368 patients. There was a significantly higher reporting of cardiovascular complications in LV centers (5.2%), especially pericarditis (0.6%) and cardiac perforation (1.4%), while the HV and MV centers reported cardiovascular complications in 3.0 and 4.3% of cases, respectively (p=0.039). Additionally, stroke incidence after ablation was significantly higher in LV centers (0.5% of cases vs 0% in HV and MV centers, p=0.008). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis based on adjusted data of all complications demonstrated, however, that there was not a significant difference in complication rate according to volume's center (p=0.402, Figure A). One-year success after AF ablation ranged from 77.8% in HV vs 70.5% in LV vs 77.3% in MV centers (p<0.001). Nonetheless, adjusted recurrence rate was not significantly different among centers (p=0.363, Figure B), a result driven by differences both in ablation technical characteristics and risk/severity of cases ablated in different volume centers. Conclusions Despite the notion that “the higher, the better”, our results suggest that AF ablation is a safe procedure with high success rates in all European centers, independent of the AF ablation procedural volume. Differences in patients and procedural characteristics may justify the equality of complication and recurrence rate among centers, since expertise level counterbalances the risk of each case.

scholarly journals Impact of procedural volume on complication and recurrence rate after atrial fibrillation ablation in European centers. An ESC EORP Registry: Atrial Fibrillation Long-Term

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Pagourelias ◽  
V Vassilikos ◽  
C Blomstrom-Lundqvist ◽  
J Kautzner ◽  
A.P Maggioni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Cardiovascular Complications ◽  
Recurrence Rates ◽  
Stroke Incidence ◽  
Af Ablation ◽  
Procedural Volume ◽  
Low Volume ◽  
One Year

Abstract Background Catheter ablation has emerged as an effective therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Despite high success rates of the method, there is still heterogeneity of outcomes and complications across Europe. A center's volume of AF ablations performed per year might also play an important role in the success rate of the procedure as compared to other confounding factors which may be different among centers (such as type of AF ablated, patient selection criteria, referral bias and/or ablation strategy). Purpose Aim of the study was to investigate differences in clinical outcomes and complication rates among European AF ablation centers related to the volume of ablations performed annually. Methods Data for this analysis were extracted from the European AF Ablation Long-Term Study, a prospective registry designed to describe the clinical epidemiology of patients undergoing AF ablation. Based on 33th and 67th percentiles of number of AF ablations performed, the participating centers were classified into high volume (HV) (≥180 procedures/year), medium volume (MV) (&lt;180 and ≥74/year) and low volume (LV) (&lt;74/year). One-year success was defined as patient survival free from any atrial arrhythmia, from the end of the 3-month blanking period to 12 months following the ablation procedure. Results A total of 91 centers in 26 European countries enrolled 3368 patients. There was a significantly higher reporting of cardiovascular complications in LV centers (5.2%), especially pericarditis and cardiac perforation, while the HV and MV centers reported cardiovascular complications in 3.0 and 4.3% of cases, respectively (p=0.039). Additionally, stroke incidence after ablation was significantly higher in LV centers (0.5% of cases vs 0% in HV and MV centers, p=0.008). One-year success after AF ablation ranged from 77.8% in HV vs 70.5% in LV vs 77.3% in MV centers (p&lt;0.001). Despite these unadjusted differences, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis based on adjusted data demonstrated, however, that there were not significant differences in complication and recurrence rates according to volume's center (p=0.328 and p=0.476 accordingly, Figure A). This result was mainly driven by a proportional increase in severity/risk of cases ablated (as evidenced by CHA2DS2-VASc score and AF type) in relation to a center's procedural volume (Figure B). Conclusions Low volume centers present slightly higher cardiovascular complications' and stroke incidence and a lower unadjusted success rate after AF ablation. On the other hand, adjusted overall complication and recurrence rates are non-significantly different among different volume centers, a fact reflecting inhomogeneity of patient and procedural profiles and a counterbalance between expertise and risk level among participating centers. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

P4762What do atrial fibrillation ablation procedural volume differences across European centers reflect? An ESC EORP registry: atrial fibrillation long-term

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Pagourelias ◽  
V Vassilikos ◽  
C Blomstrom-Lundqvist ◽  
J Kautzner ◽  
A P Maggioni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Clinical Epidemiology ◽  
Regional Distribution ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Af Ablation ◽  
Ablation Volume ◽  
Long Term Study ◽  
Procedural Volume ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract Background Data from the European Atrial Fibrillation (AF) Ablation Long-Term Registry suggest that there are significant differences in the volume of AF ablation procedures performed across different centers even in the same country. If these differences in AF ablation volume between centers reflect regional, socioeconomic, infrastructural/technical or other disparities has not been addressed till now. Purpose The aim of this study was to investigate patient and non-patient related differences among European AF ablation centers according to the volume of AF ablations performed. Methods Data for this analysis originate from the European AF Ablation Long-Term Study, a prospective registry designed to describe the clinical epidemiology of patients undergoing AF ablation. Based on 25th and 75th percentiles of AF ablation numbers performed, the participating centers were classified into high volume (HV) (≥250 procedures/year), medium volume (MV) (<250 and ≥58/year) and low volume (LV) (<58/year). Patient (demographics, comorbidities) and non-patient (center infrastructure, procedural characteristics) related differences were assessed. Results A total of 91 centers in 26 European countries enrolled 3368 patients. There were no significant differences concerning regional distribution, hospital/cardiology facilities or services provided among centers with the exception of electrophysiology procedures and labs which were more abundant in HV centers (p=0.02 and <0.001 respectively). HV and MV centers ablate twice more cases of long-standing persistent and persistent AF compared to LV centers, in which paroxysmal AF reaches 78.9% of all cases (Figure A). Accordingly, first AF ablation procedure was far more frequent in LV centers compared to MV and HV (85.8% vs 76.0% vs 76.1% respectively, p<0.001). Even though HV centers ablate significantly more high risk patients (CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2 51.4% in HV vs 46.5% in MV vs 37.2% in LV, p<0.001) (Figure B) with accompanying comorbidities, applying more elaborate ablation techniques, fluoroscopy time and radiation dose were higher among patients undergoing AF ablation in LV centers (p<0.001 for all). Despite the above-mentioned dissimilarities, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, based on adjusted data, demonstrated non-significant differences in complication rate (p=0.402) or AF recurrence rate (p=0.363) among HV, MV and LV centers. Conclusions Volume of AF ablations in a center is not correlated with regional or infrastructural characteristics. The higher volume in HV centers consists mainly by more long-term persistent AF and higher risk patients, suggesting that differences in volume reflect differences in experience and personnel's commitment towards AF ablation.

scholarly journals Impact of centre volume on atrial fibrillation ablation outcomes in Europe: a report from the ESC EHRA EORP Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Long-Term (AFA LT) Registry

EP Europace ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vassilios P Vassilikos ◽  
Efstathios D Pagourelias ◽  
Cécile Laroche ◽  
Carina Blomström-Lundqvist ◽  
Josef Kautzner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Cardiovascular Complications ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation Ablation ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Stroke Incidence ◽  
Af Ablation ◽  
Long Term Study ◽  
Low Volume

Abstract Aims  The aim of the study was to investigate differences in clinical outcomes and complication rates among European atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation centres related to the volume of AF ablations performed. Methods and results  Data for this analysis were extracted from the ESC EHRA EORP European AF Ablation Long-Term Study Registry. Based on 33rd and 67th percentiles of number of AF ablations performed, the participating centres were classified into high volume (HV) (≥ 180 procedures/year), medium volume (MV) (&lt;180 and ≥74/year), and low volume (LV) (&lt;74/year). A total of 91 centres in 26 European countries enrolled in 3368 patients. There was a significantly higher reporting of cardiovascular complications and stroke incidence in LV centres compared with HV and MV (P = 0.039 and 0.008, respectively) and a lower success rate after AF ablation (55.3% in HV vs. 57.2% in LV vs. 67.4% in MV centres, P &lt; 0.001), despite lower CHA2DS2-VASc score of patients, enrolled in LVs and less complex ablation techniques used. Adjustments of confounding factors (including type of AF ablation) led to elimination of these differences. Conclusion  Low-volume centres tended to present slightly higher cardiovascular complications’ and stroke incidence and a lower unadjusted success rate after AF ablation, despite the fact that ablation procedures and patients were of lower risk compared with MV and HV centres. On the other hand, adjusted overall complication and recurrence rates were non-significantly different among different volume centres, a fact reflecting the heterogeneity of patient and procedural profiles, and a counterbalance between expertise and risk level among participating centres.

scholarly journals Impact of atrial fibrillation pattern on outcomes after left atrial appendage closure: lessons from the prospective LAARGE registry

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shinwan Kany ◽  
Johannes Brachmann ◽  
Thorsten Lewalter ◽  
Ibrahim Akin ◽  
Horst Sievert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Left Atrial Appendage ◽  
Systemic Embolism ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
History Of ◽  
One Year ◽  
The One

Abstract Background Non-paroxysmal (NPAF) forms of atrial fibrillation (AF) have been reported to be associated with an increased risk for systemic embolism or death. Methods Comparison of procedural details and long-term outcomes in patients (pts) with paroxysmal AF (PAF) against controls with NPAF in the prospective, multicentre observational registry of patients undergoing LAAC (LAARGE). Results A total of 638 pts (PAF 274 pts, NPAF 364 pts) were enrolled. In both groups, a history of PVI was rare (4.0% vs 1.6%, p = 0.066). The total CHA2DS2-VASc score was lower in the PAF group (4.4 ± 1.5 vs 4.6 ± 1.5, p = 0.033), while HAS-BLED score (3.8 ± 1.1 vs 3.9 ± 1.1, p = 0.40) was comparable. The rate of successful implantation was equally high (97.4% vs 97.8%, p = 0.77). In the three-month echo follow-up, LA thrombi (2.1% vs 7.3%, p = 0.12) and peridevice leak > 5 mm (0.0% vs 7.1%, p = 0.53) were numerically higher in the NPAF group. Overall, in-hospital complications occurred in 15.0% of the PAF cohort and 10.7% of the NPAF cohort (p = 0.12). In the one-year follow-up, unadjusted mortality (8.4% vs 14.0%, p = 0.039) and combined outcome of death, stroke and systemic embolism (8.8% vs 15.1%, p = 0.022) were significantly higher in the NPAF cohort. After adjusting for CHA2DS2-VASc and previous bleeding, NPAF was associated with increased death/stroke/systemic embolism (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.02–2.72, p = 0.041). Conclusion Atrial fibrillation type did not impair periprocedural safety or in-hospital MACE patients undergoing LAAC. However, after one year, NPAF was associated with higher mortality. Graphic abstract

Atrial Fibrillation and Mortality in the Oldest Old after Surgery for Hip Fractures

Gerontology ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Amit Frenkel ◽  
Vladimir Zeldetz ◽  
Roni Gat ◽  
Yair Binyamin ◽  
Asaf Acker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Risk Factor ◽  
Hip Fractures ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Oldest Old ◽  
Postoperative Mortality ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
One Year

Introduction: One-year mortality following hip fractures increases steeply with age, from 2% in the 60- to 69-year-old population up to 28% in the oldest old (older than 90 years). Of the various factors that contribute to hip fractures, atrial fibrillation (AF) is an independent risk factor at any age. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the association of AF with mortality among the oldest old with hip fractures. Method: This is a retrospective cohort study of 701 persons above age 90 years who underwent orthopedic repair for a hip fracture during 2000–2018. Of them, 218 (31%) had AF at hospital admission. The primary outcome was survival following surgery. We compared patient characteristics and 30-day, 180-day, 1-year, and 3-year survival between patients with and without AF. Results: The adjusted odds ratio for 30-day postoperative mortality for those with AF versus without AF group was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63–1.66). Survival estimates were higher among those without AF than with AF at 180 days postoperative: 0.85 (95% CI 0.82–0.89) versus 0.68 (95% CI 0.61–0.74), p < 0.001; at 1 year postoperative: 0.68 (95% CI 0.63–0.72) versus 0.48 (95% CI 0.42–0.55), p < 0.001; and at 3 years postoperative: 0.47 (95% CI 0.42–0.52) versus 0.28 (95% CI 0.27–0.34), p < 0.001. Conclusions: Among individuals aged >90 years, operated for hip fractures, mortality was similar for those with and without AF at 30 days postoperative. However, the survival curves diverged sharply after 180 days. Our findings suggest that AF is not an immediate surgical risk factor, but rather confers increased long-term risk in this population.

Abstract 18649: Long-term Outcome and the Mechanisms of Pulmonary Antrum Radial-linear Ablation in Patients With Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xue Zhao ◽  
Jianqiang Hu ◽  
Yan Huang ◽  
Yawei Xu ◽  
Yanzhou Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Holter Monitoring ◽  
Pericardial Tamponade ◽  
Term Outcome ◽  
Long Term Outcome ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
One Year

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the mechanisms and effectiveness of pulmonary antrum radial-linear (PAR) ablation in comparison with pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) after a long-term follow-up. Background: The one-year follow up data suggested that PAR ablation appeared to have a better outcome over the conventional PVI for paroxysmal AF. Methods: The enrollment occurred between March, 2011, and August, 2011, with the last follow-up in May, 2014. A total of 133 patients with documented paroxysmal AF were enrolled from 5 centers and randomized to PAR group or PVI group. Event ECG recorder and Holter monitoring were conductedduring the follow-up for all patients. Results: The average procedure time was 151±23 min in PAR group and 178±43 min in PVI group ( P <0.001). The average fluoroscopy time was 21±7 min in PAR group and 27±11 min in PVI group ( P= 0.002). AF triggering foci were eliminated in 59 patients (89.4%) in PAR group, whereas, only 4 patients (6.0%) in PVI group (P<0.001).At median 36 (37-35) months of follow-up after single ablation procedure, 43 of 66 patients in PAR group (65%) and 28 of 67 patients in PVI group (42%) had no recurrence of AF off antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) (P=0.007); and 47 of 66 patients in PAR group (71%) and 32 of 67 patients in PVI group (48%) had no recurrence of AF with AAD (P=0.006). At the last follow-up, the burden of AF was significantly lower in PAR group than in PVI group (0.9% ± 2.3% vs 4.9% ± 9.9%;90th percentile, 5.5% vs 19.6%; P=0.008). No major adverse event (death, stroke, PV stenosis) was observed in all the patients except one case of pericardial tamponade. Conclusions: PAR ablation is a simple, safe, and effective strategy for the treatment of paroxysmal AF with better long-term outcome than PVI. PAR ablation might exhibit the beneficial effect on AF management through multiple mechanisms. Registration: ChiCTR-TRC-11001191

scholarly journals Impact of atrial fibrillation pattern on left atrial appendage closure: insights from the prospective LAARGE registry

EP Europace ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Kany ◽  
J Brachmann ◽  
T Lewalter ◽  
I Akin ◽  
H Sievert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Left Atrial ◽  
Left Atrial Appendage ◽  
Systemic Embolism ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Left Atrial Appendage Closure ◽  
History Of ◽  
One Year

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Stiftung für Herzinfarkforschung Background  Non-paroxysmal (NPAF) forms of atrial fibrillation (AF) have been reported to be associated with an increased risk for systemic embolism or death compared with paroxysmal AF (PAF). This study investigates the procedural safety and long-term outcomes of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients with different forms of AF. Methods  Comparison of procedural details and long-term outcomes in patients (pts) with PAF against controls with NPAF in the prospective, multicentre observational registry of patients undergoing LAAC in Germany (LAARGE).  Results  A total of 638 pts (PAF 274 pts, NPAF 364 pts) were enrolled. NPAF consisted of 31.6% patients with persistent AF and 68.4% with longstanding persistent AF or permanent AF. In both groups, a history of PVI was rare (4.0% vs 1.6%, p = 0.066). The PAF group had significantly less history of heart failure (19.0% vs 33.0%, p &lt; 0.001) while the current median LVEF was similar (60% vs 60%, p = 0.26). The total CHA2DS2-VASc score was lower in the PAF group (4.4 ± 1.5 vs 4.6 ± 1.5, p = 0.033), but no difference in the HAS-BLED score (3.8 ± 1.1 vs 3.9 ± 1.1, p = 0.40) was observed. The rate of successful implantation was equally high (97.4% vs 97.8%, p = 0.77) in both groups. In the three-month echo follow-up, device-related thrombi (2.1% vs 7.3%, p = 0.12) and peridevice leak &gt;5 mm (0.0% vs 7.1%, p= 0.53) were numerically higher in the NPAF group. Overall, in-hospital complications occurred in 15.0% of the PAF cohort and 10.7% of the NPAF cohort (p = 0.12). In the one-year follow-up, unadjusted mortality (8.4% vs 14.0%, p = 0.039) and combined outcome of death, stroke and systemic embolism (8.8% vs 15.1%, p = 0.022) were significantly higher in the NPAF cohort. After adjusting for CHA2DS2-VASc and previous bleeding, NPAF was associated with increased death/stroke/systemic embolism (HR 1.67, 95%-CI: 1.02-2.72). Conclusion  Atrial fibrillation type did not impair periprocedural safety or in-hospital MACE of patients undergoing LAAC. However, after one year, NPAF was associated with higher mortality and combined outcome of death, stroke and systemic embolism.

The Safety of Ultrasound Guided Tenotomy for Upper and Lower Extremity Tendinopathies: A Retrospective Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Fick ◽  
Daniel Stover ◽  
Ruth Chimenti ◽  
Mederic Hall
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Physical Function ◽  
Complication Rate ◽  
Plantar Fascia ◽  
Safe Procedure ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

Abstract Background: Ultrasound guided tenotomy (USGT) is a minimally invasive treatment option for patients with chronic tendinopathy who fail to benefit from conservative exercise interventions. The complication rate and effectiveness of USGT remain poorly defined in the literature. Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the risks associated with USGT and outcomes across upper extremity and lower extremity tendinopathy/fasciopathy sites. Methods Patients who had USGT at the elbow, patellar, or Achilles tendons or along the plantar fascia were identified by retrospective review of charts. Screening for complications (infection, tendon rupture, and hypersensitivity) and satisfaction with the procedure were assessed at routine short-term follow-up visits and at long-term follow-up via phone/email. Outcomes (pain, quality of life) were assessed using the region specific pain scales and the Short Form-12, respectively, at baseline prior to the procedure, short-term follow up, and long term follow up. Results: A total of 262 patients were identified through chart review. There was a low complication rate of 0.7% including one superficial wound infection and one case of wound hypersensitivity. Prior to USGT, the majority of patients reported moderate/daily pain that decreased by short-term and long-term follow-up to mild/occasional pain (p < 0.05). Additionally, most patients reported abnormally low physical function prior to USGT that was within normal range of physical function by long-term follow-up (p < 0.05). The majority of responders (63% at the plantar fascia to 92% at the Achilles midportion) reported being either ‘very satisfied’ or ‘somewhat satisfied’ with the procedure at short-term follow-up. Conclusions: This study found that USGT is a safe procedure with a low complication rate in a heterogeneous sample. Study findings provide preliminary evidence on the utility of USGT to reduce pain and improve function with a high rate of patient satisfaction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document