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

Abstract

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.