Jannis Dickow, Nele Gessler, Omar Anwar, Johannes Feldhege, Tim Harloff, Jens Hartmann, Mario Jularic, Rahin Wahedi, Borislav Dinov, Peter Wohlmuth, Stephan Willems, Melanie Gunawardene
{"title":"Safety of immediate catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias in patients admitted via the emergency department.","authors":"Jannis Dickow, Nele Gessler, Omar Anwar, Johannes Feldhege, Tim Harloff, Jens Hartmann, Mario Jularic, Rahin Wahedi, Borislav Dinov, Peter Wohlmuth, Stephan Willems, Melanie Gunawardene","doi":"10.1007/s10840-025-02020-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In patients with ventricular arrhythmias (VA) admitted via the emergency department (ED), immediate catheter ablation (CA-VA) might be indicated to stabilize patients. However, the unstable condition of these patients may increase periprocedural risk. This study evaluated the periprocedural safety of immediate CA-VA in patients admitted via the ED.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>In total, 223 ED patients who underwent immediate CA-VA from 01/2017 to 12/2022 (mean age 66 ± 13 years, 19% female, 55% heart failure, 59% coronary artery disease) were analyzed in terms of in-hospital outcomes (periprocedural death, pericardial tamponade, thromboembolic events, major bleedings). To address differences to elective patients, ED patients were compared with 784 elective CA-VA patients (mean age 59 ± 15 years, 34% female, 20% heart failure, 33% coronary artery disease, all p < 0.001): ED patients experienced higher rates of periprocedural complications (6.3% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.002) driven by thromboembolic events (2.2% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.02). Life-threatening complications were not different between groups (cardiac tamponade: 2.2% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.56; stroke: 0.9% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.67). Seven ED patients (3.1%) died unrelated to the procedure during hospitalization vs. none in the elective CA-VA group. Emergency admission (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.48-6.38), age (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.22-3.70), and heart failure (OR 1.99, 95% CI 0.96-4.15) were independently associated with periprocedural complications and overall death during hospitalization.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with VA admitted via the ED were older, sicker, and more often presented with ventricular tachycardia than elective CA-VA patients. Immediate CA-VA was associated with higher rates of periprocedural complications, driven by thromboembolic events; however, no procedure-related death occurred.</p>","PeriodicalId":16202,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-025-02020-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: In patients with ventricular arrhythmias (VA) admitted via the emergency department (ED), immediate catheter ablation (CA-VA) might be indicated to stabilize patients. However, the unstable condition of these patients may increase periprocedural risk. This study evaluated the periprocedural safety of immediate CA-VA in patients admitted via the ED.
Methods and results: In total, 223 ED patients who underwent immediate CA-VA from 01/2017 to 12/2022 (mean age 66 ± 13 years, 19% female, 55% heart failure, 59% coronary artery disease) were analyzed in terms of in-hospital outcomes (periprocedural death, pericardial tamponade, thromboembolic events, major bleedings). To address differences to elective patients, ED patients were compared with 784 elective CA-VA patients (mean age 59 ± 15 years, 34% female, 20% heart failure, 33% coronary artery disease, all p < 0.001): ED patients experienced higher rates of periprocedural complications (6.3% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.002) driven by thromboembolic events (2.2% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.02). Life-threatening complications were not different between groups (cardiac tamponade: 2.2% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.56; stroke: 0.9% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.67). Seven ED patients (3.1%) died unrelated to the procedure during hospitalization vs. none in the elective CA-VA group. Emergency admission (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.48-6.38), age (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.22-3.70), and heart failure (OR 1.99, 95% CI 0.96-4.15) were independently associated with periprocedural complications and overall death during hospitalization.
Conclusion: Patients with VA admitted via the ED were older, sicker, and more often presented with ventricular tachycardia than elective CA-VA patients. Immediate CA-VA was associated with higher rates of periprocedural complications, driven by thromboembolic events; however, no procedure-related death occurred.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology is an international publication devoted to fostering research in and development of interventional techniques and therapies for the management of cardiac arrhythmias. It is designed primarily to present original research studies and scholarly scientific reviews of basic and applied science and clinical research in this field. The Journal will adopt a multidisciplinary approach to link physical, experimental, and clinical sciences as applied to the development of and practice in interventional electrophysiology. The Journal will examine techniques ranging from molecular, chemical and pharmacologic therapies to device and ablation technology. Accordingly, original research in clinical, epidemiologic and basic science arenas will be considered for publication. Applied engineering or physical science studies pertaining to interventional electrophysiology will be encouraged. The Journal is committed to providing comprehensive and detailed treatment of major interventional therapies and innovative techniques in a structured and clinically relevant manner. It is directed at clinical practitioners and investigators in the rapidly growing field of interventional electrophysiology. The editorial staff and board reflect this bias and include noted international experts in this area with a wealth of expertise in basic and clinical investigation. Peer review of all submissions, conflict of interest guidelines and periodic editorial board review of all Journal policies have been established.