Key result
Low-volume centres had an unadjusted success rate of 57.2% vs 67.4% in medium-volume and 55.3% in high-volume centres (P<0.001), but differences were eliminated after adjusting for confounders.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to investigate differences in clinical outcomes and complication rates among European AF ablation centres related to the volume of AF ablations performed.
Does centre volume impact clinical outcomes and complication rates in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation?
Observational (n=3,368)
Yes
Does centre volume impact clinical outcomes and complication rates in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation?
After adjusting for confounding factors, atrial fibrillation ablation outcomes and complication rates do not significantly differ based on centre volume in Europe.
Unadjusted higher complications and lower success in low-volume AF ablation centres warrant caution; leaves open whether volume independently affects outcomes after adjustment.
AIMS: The aim of the study was to investigate differences in clinical outcomes and complication rates among European atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation centres related to the volume of AF ablations performed. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data for this analysis were extracted from the ESC EHRA EORP European AF Ablation Long-Term Study Registry. Based on 33rd and 67th percentiles of number of AF ablations performed, the participating centres were classified into high volume (HV) (≥ 180 procedures/year), medium volume (MV) (<180 and ≥74/year), and low volume (LV) (<74/year). A total of 91 centres in 26 European countries enrolled in 3368 patients. There was a significantly higher reporting of cardiovascular complications and stroke incidence in LV centres compared with HV and MV (P = 0.039 and 0.008, respectively) and a lower success rate after AF ablation (55.3% in HV vs. 57.2% in LV vs. 67.4% in MV centres, P < 0.001), despite lower CHA2DS2-VASc score of patients, enrolled in LVs and less complex ablation techniques used. Adjustments of confounding factors (including type of AF ablation) led to elimination of these differences. CONCLUSION: Low-volume centres tended to present slightly higher cardiovascular complications' and stroke incidence and a lower unadjusted success rate after AF ablation, despite the fact that ablation procedures and patients were of lower risk compared with MV and HV centres. On the other hand, adjusted overall complication and recurrence rates were non-significantly different among different volume centres, a fact reflecting the heterogeneity of patient and procedural profiles, and a counterbalance between expertise and risk level among participating centres.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vassilikos et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation (n=3,368). Low-volume AF ablation centre (<74 procedures/year) vs. Medium-volume and high-volume centres was evaluated on Success rate after AF ablation (p=<0.001). Low-volume centres had an unadjusted success rate of 57.2% vs 67.4% in medium-volume and 55.3% in high-volume centres (P<0.001), but differences were eliminated after adjusting for confounders.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: