Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation can be safely performed without invasive hemodynamic monitoring: A multi-center study

  • Published:
Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Calkins H, Hindricks G, Cappato R, et al. 2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14:e275–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hosseini SM, Rozen G, Saleh A, et al. Catheter ablation for cardiac arrhythmias: utilization and in-hospital complications, 2000 to 2013. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017;3:1240–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mansour M, Karst E, Heist EK, et al. The impact of first procedure success rate on the economics of atrial fibrillation ablation. JACC: Clin Electrophysiol. 2017;3:129–38.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cheung JW, Yeo I, Cheng EP, et al. Inpatient hospital procedural volume and outcomes following catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020;31:1908–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wazni OM, Dandamudi G, Sood N, et al. Cryoballoon ablation as initial therapy for atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:316–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Andrade JG, Wells GA, Deyell MW, et al. Cryoablation or drug therapy for initial treatment of atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2020;384:305–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gerstein NS, Young A, Schulman PM, et al. Sedation in the electrophysiology laboratory: a multidisciplinary review. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5:e003629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sha Q, Velleca M, Goldstein L, et al. The value of intracardiac echocardiography in catheter ablation of cardiac arrhythmias: insights from recent clinical studies. EMJ Cardiol. 2020;8:2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Muthalaly RG, John RM, Schaeffer B, et al. Temporal trends in safety and complication rates of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2018;29:854–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schmidt M, Daccarett M, Marschang H, et al. Intracardiac echocardiography improves procedural efficiency during cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation: a pilot study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2010;21:1202–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Marrouche NF, Brachmann J, Andresen D, et al. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:417–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kautzner J, Peichl P, Sramko M, et al. Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in elderly population. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2017;14:563–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Ad N, Henry L, Hunt S, et al. Should surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation be performed in patients with a significantly enlarged left atrium? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147:236–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dinshaw L, Münkler P, Schäffer B, et al. Ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: treatment strategy, characteristics of consecutive atrial tachycardia and long-term outcome. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e017451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kirov MY, Kuzkov VV, Molnar Z. Perioperative haemodynamic therapy. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2010;16:384–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Aldhoon B, Wichterle D, Peichl P, et al. Complications of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in a high-volume centre with the use of intracardiac echocardiography. EP Europace. 2012;15:24–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wynn GJ, Haq I, Hung J, et al. Improving safety in catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: a prospective study of the use of ultrasound to guide vascular access. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2014;25:680–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sharma PS, Padala SK, Gunda S, et al. Vascular complications during catheter ablation of cardiac arrhythmias: a comparison between vascular ultrasound guided access and conventional vascular access. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016;27:1160–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang TKM, Wang MTM, Martin A. Meta-analysis of ultrasound-guided vs conventional vascular access for cardiac electrophysiology procedures. J Arrhythm. 2019;35:858–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tanioku T, Yoshida A, Aratani Y, et al. Validation of noninvasive continuous arterial pressure measurement by ClearSight System™ during induction of anesthesia for cardiovascular surgery. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020;20:176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Broch O, Renner J, Gruenewald M, et al. A comparison of the Nexfin® and transcardiopulmonary thermodilution to estimate cardiac output during coronary artery surgery. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:377–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ameloot K, Van De Vijver K, Broch O, et al. Nexfin noninvasive continuous hemodynamic monitoring: validation against continuous pulse contour and intermittent transpulmonary thermodilution derived cardiac output in critically ill patients. ScientificWorldJournal. 2013;2013:519080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Martina JR, Westerhof BE, van Goudoever J, et al. Noninvasive continuous arterial blood pressure monitoring with Nexfin®. Anesthesiology. 2012;116:1092–103.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Maggi R, Viscardi V, Furukawa T, et al. Non-invasive continuous blood pressure monitoring of tachycardic episodes during interventional electrophysiology. Europace. 2010;12:1616–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Berkelmans GFN, Kuipers S, Westerhof BE, et al. Comparing volume-clamp method and intra-arterial blood pressure measurements in patients with atrial fibrillation admitted to the intensive or medium care unit. J Clin Monit Comput. 2018;32:439–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Pagonas N, Schmidt S, Eysel J, et al. Impact of atrial fibrillation on the accuracy of oscillometric blood pressure monitoring. Hypertension. 2013;62:579–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Maass SW, Roekaerts PM, Lancé MD. Cardiac output measurement by bioimpedance and noninvasive pulse contour analysis compared with the continuous pulmonary artery thermodilution technique. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2014;28:534–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. SpernaWeiland NH, de Wever JW, van Duivenvoorde Y, et al. Agreement between ccNexfin CO-trek cardiac output and intermittent cold-bolus pulmonary thermodilution in a prospective multicenter study. Minerva Anestesiol. 2018;84:473–80.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bollmann A, Ueberham L, Schuler E, et al. Cardiac tamponade in catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: German-wide analysis of 21 141 procedures in the Helios atrial fibrillation ablation registry (SAFER). EP Europace. 2018;20:1944–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Murakawa Y, Yamane T, Goya M, et al. Incidence and predictors of pericardial effusion as an early complication of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: the Japanese Catheter Ablation Registry of Atrial Fibrillation (J-CARAF). J Arrhythmia. 2017;33:430–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gellert G, Bramlage P. Use of the ClearSight® System for continuous noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring during heart valve interventions: review of the literature and single-site experience. Heart Surg Forum. 2018;21:E476-e483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Froehler MT, Chitale R, Magarik JA, Fusco MR. Comparison of a pressure-sensing sheath and radial arterial line for intraoperative blood pressure monitoring in neurointerventional procedures. J NeuroInterv Surg. 2018;10:784–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Scheer B, Perel A, Pfeiffer UJ. Clinical review: complications and risk factors of peripheral arterial catheters used for haemodynamic monitoring in anaesthesia and intensive care medicine. Crit Care. 2002;6:199–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mitchell MD, Hong JA, Lee BY, et al. Systematic review and cost-benefit analysis of radial artery access for coronary angiography and intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5:454–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiology, University of Missouri School of Medicine, One Hospital Drive, Columbia, MO, USA

    Arshad Muhammad Iqbal & Sandeep Gautam

  2. University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO, USA

    Kai Yu Li

  3. Boulder Health, Boulder, CO, USA

    Sam G. Aznaurov

  4. Ascension Saint Thomas West Hospital, Nashville, TN, USA

    Ricardo M. Lugo

  5. Houston Methodist/The Woodlands Hospital, Conroe, TX, USA

    Rajesh Venkataraman

Authors
  1. Arshad Muhammad Iqbal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kai Yu Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sam G. Aznaurov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ricardo M. Lugo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rajesh Venkataraman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sandeep Gautam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arshad Muhammad Iqbal.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 25 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Iqbal, A.M., Li, K.Y., Aznaurov, S.G. et al. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation can be safely performed without invasive hemodynamic monitoring: A multi-center study. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 64, 743–749 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-022-01151-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-022-01151-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation