Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Open access
Research Article
4 December 2024

Hospital readmissions following catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with THERMOCOOL™ STSF/ THERMOCOOL™ ST catheter with CARTO™ 3 system versus TactiCath™ catheter with EnSite™ system

Authors: Alexandru I Costea, Rahul Khanna [email protected], Maximiliano Iglesias, and Yiran RongAuthor Info & Affiliations
Volume 14, Number 1
https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2024-0075
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: Radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation (CA) is a mainstay treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF). RF catheters with contact force (CF) sensing technology and electroanatomical mapping systems enable real-time assessment of catheter tip-tissue interface CF, facilitating individualized and precise CA. This study examined inpatient hospital readmissions in patients with AF treated with THERMOCOOL™ ST/ THERMOCOOL™ STSF catheter with the CARTO™ 3 System versus TactiCath™ catheter with the EnSite™ System. Materials & methods: Patients undergoing CA for AF between 1 July 2019 to 30 November 2021 were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database and grouped based on use of THERMOCOOL ST/STSF or TactiCath™. Study outcomes were all-cause, cardiovascular (CV)-, and AF-related inpatient readmission at 91–365-day post-CA. Inverse probability of treatment weighting of propensity scores balanced baseline patient, comorbidity and hospital characteristics. A weighted generalized estimating equation (GEE) model examined differences in readmission outcomes. Results: A total of 15,518 patients met inclusion criteria (THERMOCOOL ST/STSF, n = 13,001; TactiCath™, n = 2517). Patient characteristics were generally well-balanced after weighting. Patients treated with THERMOCOOL ST/STSF + CARTO 3 had a 20% lower likelihood of all-cause inpatient readmissions (7.8 vs 9.3%, chi-square p = 0.041; odds ratio [OR]: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66–0.96, GEE p = 0.019) and a 21% lower likelihood of CV-related inpatient readmission (5.2 vs 6.2%, chi-square p = 0.133, OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.62–0.99, GEE p = 0.043) in 91–365-days post-CA versus those treated with TactiCath™ + Ensite. No significant differences were observed for AF-related readmissions. Conclusion: Patients undergoing CA for AF treated with THERMOCOOL ST/STSF + CARTO 3 had a significantly lower risk of all-cause and CV-related inpatient hospital readmission versus those treated with TactiCath™ + Ensite.

Shareable abstract

In this study, atrial fibrillation patients who had catheter ablation procedure using the THERMOCOOL™ ST/STSF Catheter + CARTO™ 3 mapping system had significantly lower risk of readmissions versus those treated with TactiCath™ Catheter + EnSite™ system.

Graphical abstract

Plain language summary

Hospital readmission rates after treatment for atrial fibrillation using different ablation catheters guided by electroanatomical mapping systems.

What is this article about?

Atrial fibrillation is the most common cardiac rhythm disorder and is usually treated with radiofrequency ablation. The current study compared inpatient hospital readmission rates after treatment with two different catheters and electroanatomical mapping systems: THERMOCOOL™ ST/STSF Catheter using the CARTO™ 3 System (THERMOCOOL ST/STSF + CARTO 3) versus TactiCath™ Catheter using the EnSite™ System (TactiCath + Ensite).

What were the results?

Patients treated with THERMOCOOL ST/STSF + CARTO 3 had a lower risk of all-cause and cardiovascular-related inpatient hospital readmissions compared with those treated with TactiCath + Ensite. There were no differences in atrial fibrillation-related inpatient readmissions between the groups.

What do the results mean?

The choice of ablation catheter and electroanatomical mapping system may impact hospital readmission rates following radiofrequency catheter ablation treatment for atrial fibrillation.

Supplementary Material

File (supplementary materials.docx)

References

1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Heart Disease: Atrial Fibrillation. (Accessed 16 July 2023). https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/atrial_fibrillation.htm
Google Scholar
2.
Heeringa J, van der Kuip DA, Hofman A et al. Prevalence, incidence and lifetime risk of atrial fibrillation: the Rotterdam study. Eur. Heart J. 27, 949–953 (2006).
PubMed
Google Scholar
3.
Benjamin EJ, Muntner P, Alonso A et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics – 2019 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 139, e56–e528 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
4.
Vasan RS, Zuo Y, Kalesan B. Divergent temporal trends in morbidity and mortality related to heart failure and atrial fibrillation: age, sex, race, and geographic differences in the United States, 1991–2015. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 8, e010756 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
5.
Arora S, Lahewala S, Tripathi B et al. Causes and predictors of readmission in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing catheter ablation: a national population-based cohort study. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 7(12), e009294 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
Bumpus SM, Krallman R, McMahon CJ et al. Insights into hospital readmission patterns of atrial fibrillation patients. Eur. J. Cardiovasc. Nursing. 19(6), 545–550 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
7.
Asad ZUA, Yousif A, Khan MS et al. Catheter ablation versus medical therapy for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Circ. Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 12, e007414 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
8.
Mark DB, Anstrom KJ, Sheng S et al. Effect of catheter ablation vs medical therapy on quality of life among patients with atrial fibrillation: the CABANA randomized clinical trial. JAMA 321, 1275–1285 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
9.
Marrouche NF, Brachmann J, Andresen D et al. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with heart failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 378, 417–427 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
10.
Packer DL, Piccini JP, Monahan KH et al. Ablation versus drug therapy for atrial fibrillation in heart failure: results from the CABANA Trial. Circulation 143, 1377–1390 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
11.
Calkins H, Kuck KH, Cappato R et al. 2012 HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: recommendations for patient selection, procedural techniques, patient management and follow-up, definitions, endpoints, and research trial design. Heart Rhythm. 9(4), 632–696.e21 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
12.
Afzal MR, Chatta J, Samanta A et al. Use of contact force sensing technology during radiofrequency ablation reduces recurrence of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart Rhythm. 12, 1990–1996 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
13.
Lin H, Chen YH, Hou JW et al. Role of contact force-guided radiofrequency catheter ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 28, 994–1005 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
14.
Di Biase L, Monir G, Melby D et al. SURPOINT Postapproval Trial Investigators. Composite index tagging for PVI in paroxysmal AF: a prospective, multicenter postapproval study. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 8(9), 1077–1089 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
15.
Osorio J, Romero J, Varley AL et al. PO-03-243 Contemporary paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation trends from real world practice: insights from the large multi-center prospective Real-AF Registry. Heart Rhythm. 20(9), e151–e152 (2023).
Google Scholar
16.
Doshi A, Maccioni S, Preethi SM et al. Catheter ablation using advanced porous tip contact force-sensing radiofrequency catheter: impact on health care utilization among patients with persistent atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm O2. 3(5), 474–481 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
17.
Lo M, Nair D, Mansour M et al. Contact force catheter ablation for the treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation: results from the PERSIST-END study. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 34, 279–290 (2023).
PubMed
Google Scholar
18.
Lo MY, Sanders P, Sommer P et al. Safety and effectiveness of a next-generation contact force catheter: results of the TactiSense Trial. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 7, 1013–1021 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
19.
Calkins H, Hindricks G, Cappato R et al. 2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm. 14, e275–e444 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
20.
Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat. Med. 34, 3661–3679 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
21.
Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. Royal Stat. Soc. Series B (Methodological). 57, 289–300 (1995).
Google Scholar
22.
Costea A, Goldstein L, Maccioni S et al. Real-world outcomes comparison among adults with atrial fibrillation undergoing catheter ablation with a contact force porous tip catheter versus a second-generation cryoballoon catheter: a retrospective analysis of multihospital US database. BMJ Open. 10, e035499 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
23.
Berman AE, Maccioni S, Khanna R. Atrial fibrillation ablation with advanced radiofrequency catheter versus second-generation cryoballoon catheter. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 11(9), 659–668 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
24.
Reddy VY, Dukkipati SR, Neuzil P et al. Randomized, controlled trial of the safety and effectiveness of a contact force-sensing irrigated catheter for ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: results of the TactiCath Contact Force Ablation Catheter Study for Atrial Fibrillation (TOCCASTAR) Study. Circulation 132, 907–915 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
25.
Squara F, Zhao A, Marijon E et al. Comparison between radiofrequency with contact force-sensing and second-generation cryoballoon for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: a multicentre European evaluation. EP Europace. 17, 718–724 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
26.
Chen CF, Gao XF, Liu MJ et al. Safety and efficacy of the ThermoCool SmartTouch SurroundFlow catheter for atrial fibrillation ablation: a meta-analysis. Clin. Cardiol. 43, 267–274 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
27.
Natale A, Reddy VY, Monir G et al. Paroxysmal AF catheter ablation with a contact force sensing catheter: results of the prospective, multicenter SMART-AF trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 64, 647–656 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
28.
Natale A, Calkins H, Osorio J et al. Positive clinical benefit on patient care, quality of life, and symptoms after contact force-guided radiofrequency ablation in persistent atrial fibrillation: analyses from the PRECEPT prospective multicenter study. Circ. Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 14, e008867 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
29.
Kim YH, Chen SA, Ernst S et al. 2019 APHRS expert consensus statement on three-dimensional mapping systems for tachycardia developed in collaboration with HRS, EHRA, and LAHRS. J. Arrhythm. 36, 215–270 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
30.
Obeng-Gyimah E, Nazarian S. Advancements in imaging for atrial fibrillation ablation: is there a potential to improve procedural outcomes? J. Innov. Card. Rhythm Manag. 11(7), 4172–4178 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
31.
Höfer D, Steffel J, Duru F et al. Feasibility, efficiency, and safety of zero-fluoroscopy catheter interventions for right-sided cardiac arrhythmias using only electroanatomic mapping. Cardiology 147(5–6), 547–556 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
32.
Kang KT, Etheridge SP, Kantoch MJ et al. Current management of focal atrial tachycardia in children. Circ. Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 7(4), 664–670 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
33.
Stabile G, Scaglione M, del Greco M et al. Reduced fluoroscopy exposure during ablation of atrial fibrillation using a novel electroanatomical navigation system: a multicentre experience. Europace. 14, 60–65 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
34.
Ioannou A, Papageorgiou N, Lim WY et al. Efficacy and safety of ablation index-guided catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: an updated meta-analysis. Europace. 22, 1659–1671 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
35.
Duytschaever M, Vijgen J, De Potter T et al. Standardized pulmonary vein isolation workflow to enclose veins with contiguous lesions: the multicentre VISTAX trial. Europace. 22, 1645–1652 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
36.
Di Biase L, Monir G, Melby D et al. Composite index tagging for PVI in paroxysmal AF: a prospective, multicenter postapproval study. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 8, 1077–1089 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
37.
Di Biase L, Tabereaux P, Liu CF et al. Reproducibility of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation clinical outcomes using composite ablation index with different contact force-sensing catheters. Circ. Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 15, e011561 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
38.
Gupta D, Vijgen J, Potter T et al. Quality of life and healthcare utilisation improvements after atrial fibrillation ablation. Heart 107, 1296–1302 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
39.
Rattanakosit T, Franke K, Munawar DA et al. Role of indices incorporating power, force and time in AF ablation: a systematic review of literature. Heart Lung Circ. 30, 1379–1388 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
|