Abstract 4118804: Use and Clinical Outcomes Associated with Urgent versus Elective Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in the United States

Introduction: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is an increasingly important evidence-based treatment option for select patients. Although typically performed as an outpatient elective procedure, the use and clinical outcomes of AF ablation pursued urgently among inpatients have not been adequately characterized. Hypothesis: Rate of urgent AF ablation, defined as an AF ablation procedure pursued among inpatients hospitalized for a non-procedural indication, has increased over time, and may be associated with worse outcomes. Aims: To describe the use and outcomes of urgent versus elective AF ablation. Methods: Using the NCDR AFib Ablation Registry, patients who underwent AF ablation from 1/1/2016 to 6/30/2023 were stratified according to whether AF ablation was urgent or elective. Logistic regression models were fitted to determine patient and hospital-level factors associated with use of urgent AF ablation. Cochrane-Armitage tests were used to test for trends over time. Unadjusted and adjusted in-hospital event rates were reported. Results: Among 140,051 patients, 2,714 (1.9%) underwent urgent inpatient AF ablation and 137,337 (98.1%) elective ablation. Compared with the elective cohort, those undergoing urgent ablation had higher rates of co-morbid conditions including: diabetes (30.6% vs. 20.4%, P<0.0001), coronary artery disease (30.8% vs. 22.7%, P<0.0001), and heart failure (47.1% vs 20.8%, P<0.0001). Urgent AF ablation was more often used among patients of Black race (OR 1.68; 95% CI: 1.41 – 2.0) and those with AF at the time of the procedure (OR 1.73; 95% CI: 1.36 – 2.20). Higher hospital procedural volume of AF ablations ([per 100 cases] OR 1.22; 95% CI: 1.20 – 1.25) was also associated with higher odds of urgent AF ablation. The use of urgent AF ablation increased from 0.5% in 2016, to 2.0% in 2023 (P<0.0001). Unadjusted event rates for AF-related complications were significantly higher for the urgent cohort (Figure). The adjusted rate of any procedure-related complication was significantly higher in the urgent cohort (urgent 4.9% vs. elective 2.4%, P<0.0001). Conclusions: The rate of urgent inpatient AF ablation has increased over time. Compared with elective AF ablation, after adjustment for patient risk factors, urgent AF ablation is associated with significantly higher rates of procedural complications. Use of urgent, inpatient AF ablation should be carefully considered within clinical contexts and offered to select patients.