4.7 Article

Swiss National Registry on Catheter Ablation Procedures: Changing Trends over the Last 20 Years

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10143021

关键词

catheter ablation; electrophysiology; national registry; clinical outcome; quality assurance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the past 20 years, there has been a significant increase in the number of catheter ablations in Switzerland, primarily driven by procedures for atrial fibrillation. With the passage of time, there has been a decrease in fluoroscopy, ablation, and procedure durations.
The Swiss Ablation Registry provides a national database for electrophysiologic studies and catheter ablations. We analyzed the database to provide an in-depth look at changing trends over the last 20 years. During the study period a total of 78622 catheter ablations (age 61.0 +/- 1.2 years; 63.7% male) were performed in 29 centers. The number of ablations increased by approximately ten-fold in 20 years. Ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) was the main driver behind this increase, with more than hundred-fold (39.7% of all ablations in 2019). Atrioventricular-nodal-reentrant-tachycardia (AVNRT) and accessory pathways, being the main indications for ablation in 2000 (44.1%/25.1%, respectively), made up of only a small proportion (15.2%/3.5%,) respectively in 2019. Fluoroscopy, ablation, and procedure durations were reduced for all ablations over time. The highest repeat ablations were performed for ventricular tachycardia and AF (24.4%/24.3%). The majority of ablations (63.0%) are currently performed in private hospitals and non-university public hospitals whereas university hospitals had dominated (82.4%) at the turn of the century. A pronounced increase in the number of catheter ablations in Switzerland was accompanied by a marked decrease in fluoroscopy, ablation, and procedure durations. We observed a shift toward more complex procedures in older patients with comorbidities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据