These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation can be safely performed without invasive hemodynamic monitoring: A multi-center study.
    Author: Iqbal AM, Li KY, Aznaurov SG, Lugo RM, Venkataraman R, Gautam S.
    Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol; 2022 Sep; 64(3):743-749. PubMed ID: 35182273.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Arterial invasive monitoring is the most common method in the USA for hemodynamic monitoring during atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Although studies have shown favorable comparison between non-invasive and invasive hemodynamic monitoring (IHM) in non-cardiac procedures under general anesthesia, limited data is available for complex cardiac procedures such as AF ablation in the USA. With progressive improvement in AF ablation procedural safety, particularly with routine use of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) to monitor for pericardial effusion, it is unclear if invasive hemodynamic monitoring provides any advantage over non-invasive methods. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine whether noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring is non-inferior to invasive hemodynamic monitoring during AF ablation under general anesthesia in patients without major cardiac structural abnormality. METHODS: A multi-center retrospective data of AF ablation from July 2019 to December 2020 was extracted. A total of three hundred and sixty-two patients (362) were included, which were divided into group A (non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring) and group B (invasive hemodynamic monitoring). The primary outcome was to compare procedural safety between the two groups. RESULTS: Out of 362 patients, 184 (51%) received non-invasive and 178 (49%) received invasive hemodynamic monitoring with similar baseline characteristics. There was no significant difference between the two groups in complication rates (groin hematoma, pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade). Mean procedure time was longer in group B with 3.35% arterial site discomfort. Urgent arterial access was required in only 1 patient in group A. CONCLUSION: This retrospective multicenter study strongly suggests that catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation under general anesthesia can be safely performed with noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring without requiring arterial access, with potential benefit in procedural duration and cost.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]