ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2022
A comparison of clinical outcomes and cost of radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with monitored anesthesia care versus general anesthesia.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sedation vs. general anaesthesia in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing catheter ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Pooled it
- Sedation strategies for pulsed-field ablation of atrial fibrillation: focus on deep sedation with intravenous ketamine in spontaneous respiration.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Trial
- A Comparison of Safety and Outcome Using Three Different Sedation Strategies During Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Article
- Anaesthetic Techniques for Cardiac Ablation-A Scoping Review.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Monitored anesthesia care versus general anesthesia for balloon-in-basket pulsed-field ablation of atrial fibrillation: an age-matched analysis of procedural timing and acute procedural outcomes.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- Feasibility of deep sedation for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation using pulsed field ablation.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2025Article
- General Anesthesia Improves Efficiency of High-Power Short-Duration Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: Comparison with Mild Conscious Sedation.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Optimal anesthesia approach during catheter ablation of premature ventricular complexes: you snooze, you lose!Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2023Article
- Active esophageal cooling during radiofrequency ablation of the left atrium: data review and update.Expert review of medical devices · 2022Review
- A comparison of clinical outcomes and cost of radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with monitored anesthesia care versus general anesthesia.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
20 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMonitored anesthesia care (MAC) or general anesthesia (GA) can be used during catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, each approach may have advantages and disadvantages with variability in operator preferences. The optimal approach has not been well established. The purpose of this study was to compare procedural efficacy, safety, clinical outcomes, and cost of CA for AF performed with MAC versus GA.
methodsThe study population consisted of 810 consecutive patients (mean age: 63 ± 10 years, paroxysmal AF: 48%) who underwent a first CA for AF. All patients completed a preprocedural evaluation by the anesthesiologists. Among the 810 patients, MAC was used in 534 (66%) and GA in 276 (34%). Ten patients (1.5%) had to convert to GA during the CA.
resultsAlthough the total anesthesia care was longer with GA particularly in patients with persistent AF, CA was shorter by 5 min with GA than MAC (p < 0.01). Prevalence of perioperative complications was similar between the two groups (4% vs. 4%, p = 0.89). There was no atrioesophageal fistula with either approach. GA was associated with a small, ~7% increase in total charges due to longer anesthesia care. During 43 ± 17 months of follow-up after a single ablation procedure, 271/534 patients (51%) in the MAC and 129/276 (47%) patients in the GA groups were in sinus rhythm without concomitant antiarrhythmic drug therapy (p = 0.28).
conclusionWith the participation of an anesthesiologist, and proper preoperative assessment, CA of AF using GA or MAC has similar efficacy and safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.