Abstract
Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Atrial Fibrillation (AF) ablation has been performed successfully under different methods of anesthesia and varies between centers, from general anaesthesia (GA) to conscious sedation. Recently, a novel pulsed-field ablation (PFA, Farapulse) technology based on non-thermal ablation has become available for clinical use. To date, no structured sedation strategy has been implemented for this specific energy source. Purpose We sought to compare a GA protocol and a monitored anesthesia care (MAC) protocol used at a high-volume center, with special consideration on efficiency and optimization of mapping and ablation conditions. Methods All consecutive patients (pts) undergoing AF ablation with PFA at our center were included. Briefly, PFA was delivered by a protocol-directed PVI using 2kV with eight applications per vein, that is, four applications each in the basket and flower poses. The choice of anesthesia’s protocol depends on the preference and experience of operator and general conditions of the patient. The MAC protocol includes propofol as only anesthetic agent and analgesia with fentanyl. The GA protocol include propofol and sevofluorane as anesthetic agents and fentanyl and remifentanyl for analgesia. Anesthesia related complications (hypotension and hemodinamic instability, respiratory complications, postoperative nausea and vomit) operative pain, chest movements, operator and patient satisfaction have been reported. Data are reported as mean±DS. Results Thirty-six pts were included in this analysis, 28 (78%) indicated for ablation of paroxysmal AF and 8 (22%) of persistent AF. MAC protocol was applied in 16 (44%) procedures and GA protocol in 30 (56%) procedures. No differences were found in terms of procedural and management parameters according with these two strategies, that is MAC vs GA: 114±28min vs 121±19min for lab occupancy time, p=0.3521; 66±14min vs 81±25min for total support time, p=0.0683; 63±9min vs 63±18min for skin-to-skin time, p=0.3887; and 19±6min vs 20±5min for fluoroscopy time, p=0.3313, respectively). No major procedure-related adverse events were reported. Operative pain and chest movements were less in GA protocol, operator satisfaction was greater in GA protocol. No significant differences in post-operative nausea and vomit and patient satisfaction were found. Conclusion The adoption of a structured workflow with proper perioperative assessment during pulsed-field ablation of AF, both general anesthesia and monitored anesthesia care showed similar efficacy and safety profile.
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
