Effect of age on in-hospital outcomes of transvenous lead extraction for infected cardiac implantable electronic device.

BACKGROUND: The real-world data on the safety profile of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) for infected cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) among elderly patients is not well-established. This study aimed to evaluate the hospital outcomes between patients of different age groups who underwent TLE for infected CIED. METHOD: Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, our study included patients aged ≥18 years who underwent TLE for infected CIED between 2017 and 2020. We divided the patients into four groups: Group A. Young (<50 years), Group B. Young intermediate (50-69 years old), Group C. Older intermediate (70-79 years old), and Group D. Octogenarian (≥80 years old). We then analyzed the in-hospital outcome and 30-day readmission between these age groups. RESULTS: A total of 10,928 patients who were admitted for TLE of infected CIED were included in this study: 982 (9.0%) patients in group A, 4,234 (38.7%) patients in group B, 3,204 (29.3%) patients in group C and 2,508 (23.0%) of patients in group D. Our study demonstrated that the risk of early mortality increased with older age (Group B vs. Group A: OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.19-3.09, p < .01; Group C vs. Group A: OR: 2.47, 95% CI: 1.51-4.04, p < .01; Group D vs. Group A: OR: 2.82, 95% CI: 1.69-4.72, p < .01). The risk of non-home discharge also increased in elderly groups (Group B vs. Group A: OR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.52-2.36; p < .01; Group C vs. Group A: OR: 2.82; 95% CI 2.24-3.56; p < .01; Group D vs. Group A: OR: 4.16; 95% CI: 3.28-5.28; p < .01). There was no significant difference in hospitalization length and 30-day readmission between different age groups. Apart from a higher rate of open heart surgery in group A, the procedural complications were comparable between these age groups. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients had worse in-hospital outcomes in early mortality and non-home discharge following the TLE for infected CIED. There was no significant difference between elderly and non-elderly groups in prolonged hospital stay and 30-day readmission. Elderly patients did not have a higher risk of procedural complications.

Impact of age on hospital outcomes after catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia.

Background: The real-world data on the safety profile of ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation among elderly patients is not well-established. This study aimed to evaluate the procedural outcomes among those aged 18-64 years versus those aged ≥65 years who underwent catheter ablation of VT. Method: Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, our study included patients aged ≥18 years who underwent VT catheter ablation between 2017 and 2020. We divided the patients into non-elderly (18-64 years old) and elderly age groups (≥65 years old). We then analyzed the in-hospital procedural outcome and 30-day readmission between these two groups. Results: Our study included 2075 (49.1%) non-elderly patients and 2153 (50.9%) elderly patients who underwent VT ablation. Post-procedurally, elderly patients had significantly higher rates of prolonged index hospitalization (≥7 days; 35.5% vs. 29.3%, p < .01), non-home discharge (13.4% vs. 6.0%, p < .01), 30-day readmission (17.0% vs. 11.4%, p < .01), and early mortality (5.5% vs. 2.4%, p < .01). There was no significant difference in the procedural complications between two groups, namely vascular complications, hemopericardium/cardiac tamponade, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), major bleeding requiring blood transfusion, and systemic embolization. Through multivariable analysis, the elderly group was associated with higher odds of early mortality (OR: 7.50; CI 1.86-30.31, p = .01), non-home discharge (OR: 2.41; CI: 1.93-3.00, p < .01) and 30-day readmission (OR: 1.58; CI 1.32-1.89, p < .01). Conclusion: Elderly patients have worse in-hospital outcome, early mortality, non-home discharge, and 30-day readmission following catheter ablation for VT. There was no significant difference between elderly and non-elderly groups in the procedural complications.

Association of Paroxysmal Versus Persistent Atrial Fibrillation with In-hospital Outcomes and 30-day Readmission After Inpatient Atrial Fibrillation Ablation.

Knowledge of the impact of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) after catheter ablation on in-hospital outcomes and 30-day readmission remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the procedural outcomes and 30-day readmission rates among patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF who were hospitalized for AF ablation. Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, our study included patients aged ≥18 years with AF who were hospitalized and underwent catheter ablation during 2017-2020. Then, we compared the in-hospital procedural outcomes and 30-day readmission rates between patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF, respectively. Our study included 7310 index admissions for paroxysmal AF ablation and 9179 index admissions for persistent AF ablation. According to our analysis, there was no significant difference in procedural complications-namely, cerebrovascular accident, vascular complications, major bleeding requiring blood transfusion, phrenic nerve palsy, pericardial complications, and systemic embolization-between the persistent and paroxysmal AF groups. There was also no significant difference in early mortality between these groups (0.5% vs. 0.7%; P = .22). Persistent AF patients had significantly higher rates of prolonged index hospitalization (9.9% vs. 7.2%; P < .01) and non-home discharge (4.8% vs. 3.1%; P < .01). The 30-day readmission rates were comparable in both groups (10.0% vs. 9.5%; P = .34), with recurrent AF and heart failure being two of the most common causes of cardiac-related readmissions. Catheter ablation among hospitalized patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF resulted in no significant difference in procedural complications, early mortality, or 30-day readmission. This suggests that catheter ablation of AF can be performed with a relatively similar safety profile for both paroxysmal and persistent AF.