Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Outcomes by Hospital Academic Status
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background
Atrial fibrillation (Afib) is the most prevalent arrhythmia worldwide and catheter ablation has been established as an effective treatment modality. The outcomes can vary based on medical expertise and location of the procedure. This study evaluates the differences in outcomes of catheter ablation performed at non-academic compared to academic institutions.
Methods
A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the TriNetX US Collaborative Network. Adults (35–90 years), who underwent Afib ablation between Jan 1, 2010, to Jan 1, 2020, were included. Those with congenital malformations of circulatory system, rheumatic heart disease, ischemic cardiomyopathy, or prior myocardial infarction (MI) were excluded.Groups were stratified by hospital academic status and balanced using 1:1 propensity score matching. Outcomes were assessed within 365 days post-ablation. Patients with outcome prior to the time window were excluded and odds ratio was used for statistical comparisons with significance set at p<0.05.
Results
Following propensity score matching, the analysis revealed that patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation at non-academic institutions had significantly higher odds of requiring additional or redo ablation (OR: 1.844; 95% CI: 1.409–2.415) and developing acute kidney injury (OR: 1.534; 95% CI: 1.054–2.232) compared to those treated at academic institutions. Other post-ablation complications, including cardiac arrest (OR: 1.101; 95% CI: 0.466–2.599), cardiac tamponade (OR: 1.101; 95% CI: 0.466–2.599), esophageal perforation (OR: 1.000; 95% CI: 0.415–2.409), and hemorrhages or hematomas (OR: 0.909; 95% CI: 0.385–2.145), did not differ significantly between the two groups.
Conclusion
Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation performed at academic hospitals resulted in better outcomes, potentially reflecting advanced technical expertise, post-op care and better institutional resources. These results highlight the importance of standardization of care and the need for increased access of high-standard care across healthcare settings. Future studies should investigate modifiable institutional factors and patient level variables driving this disparity.
