Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Zhonghua Xin Xue Guan Bing Za Zhi. 2017 Nov 24;45(11):935-939. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-3758.2017.11.008.

[Clinical characteristics and outcome comparison between atrial fibrillation patients underwent catheter ablation under general aesthesia or local anesthesia and sedation].

[Article in Chinese; Abstract available in Chinese from the publisher]

Author information

1
First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116000, China.

Abstract

in English, Chinese

Objective: To compare the outcome of radiofrequency catheter ablation under local anesthesia/sedation (S) or general anesthesia(GA) in atrial fibrillation patients. Methods: Data of 498 patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation in our departmentfrom January 2014 to December 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Two hundred and twenty patients assigned to the GA group, the other 278 patients to the S group. Patients were followed clinically every 3 months within one year after procedure. Immediate electrocardiogram was performed in patients with palpitation or choking sensation in chest. The end point of the study was recurrence of any atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting >30 seconds in device interrogation, 24-hour Holter monitoring or 12-lead electrocardiogram after a single procedure. After the ablation procedure, a blanking period of 3 months was allowed according to the guidelines. Procedure time, radiofrequency time, fluoroscopy time, the detection of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia, the success rate and the complications were compared between the two groups. Results: There was no difference in the baseline characteristics between the two groups, such as age, gender, BMI, complications, LVEF, LAD (all P>0.05). The duration of procedure ((117.8±51.7)minutes vs.(115.4±36.9)minutes, P=0.79), duration of fluoroscopy((12.5±11.2)minutes vs. (10.4±10.2)minutes, P=0.35), duration of radiofrequency((40.1±12.9)minutes vs. (48.6±44.3)minutes, P=0.48) were similar between the two groups (P>0.05). Compared with S group, discovery of the frequency of atrioventricular node reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) was significantly lower in GA group (0 vs. 3.6%(10/278), P<0.01), but the difference disappeared with repeat electrophysiological examination when patients become conscious from GA(3.2%(7/220) vs. 3.6%(10/278), P=0.311). The difference of atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia (AVRT) was similar between the two groups(0.9%(2/220) vs. 0.7%(2/278), P=0.841). Compared with S group, reflection of vagus nerve was less in GA group (1.4%(3/220) vs. 8.6%(24/278), P=0.026). After following up of (356±92) days, freedom from atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter/atrial tachyarrhythmia was similar between the two groups(77.9%(162/208) vs. 79.9%(215/269), P=0.818). Conclusion: General anesthesia is a promising method to atrial fibrillation ablation, in view of stable patient status and safety for the procedure. There is no difference in complications, recurrence of arrhythmia between the two groups, but detection rate of AVNRT is lower in GA group.

KEYWORDS:

Anesthesia, general; Atrial fibrillation; Catheter ablation

PMID:
29166719
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Chinese Medical Association Publishing House Ltd.
Loading ...
Support Center