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

Abstract

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) (<180 and ≥74/year) and low volume (LV) (<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<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