Safety and cost-effectiveness of same-day complex left atrial ablation.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation for complex left-atrial arrhythmia is increasing worldwide with many centres admitting patients overnight. Same-day procedures using conscious sedation carry significant benefits to patients/healthcare providers but data are limited. We evaluated the safety and cost-effectiveness of same-day complex left-atrial arrhythmia ablation. METHOD: Multi-centre retrospective cohort study of all consecutive complex elective left-atrial ablation procedures performed between January 2011 and December 2019. Data were collected on planned same-day discharge versus overnight stay, baseline parameters, procedure details/success, ablation technology, post-operative complications, unplanned overnight admissions/outcomes at 4-months and mortality up to April 2020. A cost analysis of potential savings was also performed. RESULTS: A total of 967 consecutive patients underwent complex left-ablation using radiofrequency (point-by-point ablation aided by 3D-mapping or PVAC catheter ablation with fluoroscopic screening) or cryoballoon-ablation (mean age: 60.9 ± 11.6 years, range 23-83 yrs., 572 [59%] females). The majority of patients had isolation of pulmonary veins alone (n = 846, 87%) and most using conscious-sedation alone (n = 921, 95%). Of the total cohort, 414 (43%) had planned same-day procedure with 35 (8%) admitted overnight due to major (n = 5) or minor (n = 30) complications. Overall acute procedural success-rate was 96% (n = 932). Complications in planned overnight-stay/same-day cohorts were low. At 4-month follow-up there were 62 (6.4%) readmissions (femoral haematomas, palpitation, other reasons); there were 3 deaths at mean follow-up of 42.0 ± 27.6 months, none related to the procedure. Overnight stay costs £350; the same-day ablation policy over this period would have saved £310,450. CONCLUSIONS: Same-day complex left-atrial catheter ablation using conscious sedation is safe and cost-effective with significant benefits for patients and healthcare providers. This is especially important in the current financial climate and Covid-19 pandemic.

Multi-disciplinary palliative care is effective in people with symptomatic heart failure: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Despite recommendations, people with heart failure have poor access to palliative care. AIM: To identify the evidence in relation to palliative care for people with symptomatic heart failure. DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. (PROSPERO CRD42016029911). DATA SOURCES: Databases (Medline, Cochrane database, CINAHL, PsycINFO, HMIC, CareSearch Grey Literature), reference lists and citations were searched and experts contacted. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and retrieved papers against inclusion criteria. Data were extracted from included papers and studies were critically assessed using a risk of bias tool according to design. RESULTS: Thirteen interventional and 10 observational studies were included. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of population, intervention, comparator, outcomes and design rendering combination inappropriate. The evaluation phase studies, with lower risk of bias, using a multi-disciplinary specialist palliative care intervention showed statistically significant benefit for patient-reported outcomes (symptom burden, depression, functional status, quality of life), resource use and costs of care. Benefit was not seen in studies with a single component/discipline intervention or with higher risk of bias. Possible contamination in some studies may have caused under-estimation of effect and missing data may have introduced bias. There was no apparent effect on survival. CONCLUSION: Overall, the results support the use of multi-disciplinary palliative care in people with advanced heart failure but trials do not identify who would benefit most from specialist palliative referral. There are no sufficiently robust multi-centre evaluation phase trials to provide generalisable findings. Use of common population, intervention and outcomes in future research would allow meta-analysis.

Respiratory adverse effects of opioids for breathlessness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Previous studies have shown that opioids can reduce chronic breathlessness in advanced disease. However, physicians remain reluctant to prescribe opioids for these patients, commonly due to fear of respiratory adverse effects. The aim of this study was to systematically review reported respiratory adverse effects of opioids in patients with advanced disease and chronic breathlessness.PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were searched. Two independent researchers screened against predefined inclusion criteria and extracted data. Meta-analysis was conducted where possible.We included 63 out of 1990 articles, describing 67 studies. Meta-analysis showed an increase in carbon dioxide tension (0.27 kPa, 95% CI 0.08-0.45 kPa,) and no significant change in oxygen tension and oxygen saturation (both p>0.05). Nonserious respiratory depression (definition variable/not stated) was described in four out of 1064 patients. One cancer patient pretreated with morphine for pain needed temporary respiratory support following nebulised morphine for breathlessness (single case study).We found no evidence of significant or clinically relevant respiratory adverse effects of opioids for chronic breathlessness. Heterogeneity of design and study population, and low study quality are limitations. Larger studies designed to detect respiratory adverse effects are needed.