Safety and feasibility of cardiac electrophysiology procedures in ambulatory surgery centers

Heart Rhythm. 2024 Aug 5:S1547-5271(24)03106-0. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.07.123. Online ahead of print.

Abstract

Background: Despite their improved safety, by and large, cardiac electrophysiology procedures including catheter ablation (CA), are presently performed in hospital outpatient departments.

Objective: This large multicenter study investigated the safety and outcomes associated with various cardiac electrophysiology procedures performed at 6 ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), primarily during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic under the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospitals Without Walls program.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes from consecutive electrophysiology procedures performed in ASCs with same-day discharge, including transesophageal echocardiography, cardioversion, cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation, electrophysiology studies, and CA for atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter (AFL)/supraventricular tachycardia, ventricular premature complexes (VPCs), and atrioventricular node.

Results: Altogether, 4037 procedures were performed, including 779 transesophageal echocardiography/cardioversion procedures (19.3%), 1453 CIED implantation procedures (36.0%), 26 electrophysiology studies (0.6%), and 1779 CA procedures (44.1%) for AF (75.4%), AFL/supraventricular tachycardia (18.8%), VPC (4.7%), and atrioventricular node (1.1%). Overall, 80.2% of CA procedures were for left-sided atrial arrhythmias (AF/atypical AFL) requiring transseptal catheterization. Left-sided VPC ablation procedures (42.2%) were performed using a transseptal/retrograde approach. Adverse event rates were low, but comparable between CIED implantation and CA (0.76% vs 0.73%; P = .93), as were the incidences of urgent/unplanned postprocedure hospitalization (0.48% vs 0.45%; P = .89), respectively. Moreover, the adverse event rates in ASCs vs hospital outpatient departments did not differ for CIED (0.76% vs 0.65%; P = .71) or CA (0.73% vs 0.80%; P = .79).

Conclusion: The results from this large multicenter study suggest that ASCs represent a safe and effective setting to perform a variety of cardiac electrophysiology procedures including CA. These findings bear important implications for healthcare delivery and policy.

Keywords: Ambulatory; Ambulatory surgery center; Atrial fibrillation; Cardiac implantable electronic device; Catheter ablation.