Impact of frailty in hospitalized patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Catheter Ablation (CA) is an effective treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF). However, frail elderly patients have been understudied due to their exclusion from landmark trials. OBJECTIVES: Our study aims to evaluate outcomes in this population. METHODS: The national readmission database (2016-2020) was queried, and frailty categories were defined based on hospital risk frailty scores ≦5 as low while >5 as intermediate/high frailty (IHF). We used multivariate regression and propensity-matched analysis to compare outcomes in patients undergoing CA for atrial fibrillation based on frailty index. RESULTS: Among 55 936 CAs for AF, 33,248 patients had low frailty, while 22 688 had intermediate/high frailty (IHF). After propensity matching (N 12 448), IHF patients were found to have higher adverse events, including mortality (3% vs. 0.3%, p < .001), stroke (1.9% vs. 0.2%, p < .001), acute heart failure (53.8% vs. 42.2%, p < .001), AKI (42.5% vs. 6.8%, p < .001), pericardial complications (2.8 vs. 1.6%, p < .001), respiratory complications (27.8 vs. 7.2%, p < .001), major adverse cardiovascular events (21.2 vs. 9.4%, p < .001) and net adverse events (76.7 vs. 55%, p < .001). IHF patients had higher readmissions at 30 (15.5 vs. 12.6%, p < .001), 90 (31.9 vs. 25.1%, p < .001), and 180-day (41 vs. 34.7%, p < .001) intervals. A higher median length of stay (LOS) (7 vs. 3 days, p < .001) and cost ($44 287 vs. $27 517, p < .001) at index admission and subsequent readmissions were also observed (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Intermediate/high frailty patients undergoing catheter ablation had worse clinical outcomes, higher healthcare burden, and readmission rates. LOS has decreased in both groups from 2016 to 2020; however, total cost has increased.

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.

Electrical storm after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

INTRODUCTION: Ventricular tachycardia storm or electrical storm (ES) is a common complication following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. The factors contributing to ES and outcomes are less studied. The study aimed to determine the factors associated with ES and the probability of survival in patients undergoing LVAD in three tertiary centers over a span of 15 years. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study on all patients who underwent LVAD implantation at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Phoenix, and Jacksonville) from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2020. ES was defined as ≥3 episodes of sustained ventricular tachycardia over a period of 24 h with no identifiable reversible cause. Detailed chart reviews of the electronic health records within the Mayo Clinic and outside medical records were performed. RESULTS: A total of 883 patients who underwent LVAD implantation were included in our study. ES occurred in 7% (n = 61) of patients with a median of 13 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 5-297 days) following surgery. We found 57% of patients (n = 35) developed ES within 30 days, while 43% (n = 26) patients developed ES at a median of 545  (IQR 152-1032) days after surgery. Following ES, 26% of patients died within 1 year. Patients with ES had a significant association with a history of ventricular arrhythmias and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks before the procedure. ES was significantly associated with reduced survival compared to patients without ES (hazards ratio [HR]: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.39-2.64, p < .001). CONCLUSION: Following LVAD implantation, the rate of ES was 7% with majority of ES occurring within 30 days of LVAD. Risk factors for ES included pre-implant history of ventricular arrhythmias and ICD shock. ES was significantly associated with reduced survival compared to patients without ES.

Long-term outcomes with abandoning versus extracting sterile leads: A 10-year population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Long-term outcomes of sterile lead management strategies of lead abandonment (LA) or transvenous lead extraction (TLE) remain unclear. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of a population residing in southeastern Minnesota with follow-up at the Mayo Clinic and its health systems. Patients who underwent LA or TLE of sterile leads from January 1, 2000, to January 1, 2011, and had follow-up for at least 10 years or until their death were included. RESULTS: A total of 172 patients were included in the study with 153 patients who underwent LA and 19 who underwent TLE for sterile leads. Indications for subsequent lead extraction arose in 9.1% (n = 14) of patients with initial LA and 5.3% (n = 1) in patients with initial TLE, after an average of 7 years. Moreover, 28.6% of patients in the LA cohort who required subsequent extraction did not proceed with the extraction, and among those who proceeded, 60% had clinical success and 40% had a clinical failure. Subsequent device upgrades or revisions were performed in 18.3% of patients in the LA group and 31.6% in the TLE group, with no significant differences in procedural challenges (5.2% vs. 5.3%). There was no difference in 10-year survival probability among the LA group and the TLE group (p = .64). CONCLUSION: An initial lead abandonment strategy was associated with more complicated subsequent extraction procedures compared to patients with an initial transvenous lead extraction strategy. However, there was no difference in 10-year survival probability between both lead management approaches.