Next Article in Journal
A New Frontier for Drug-Coated Balloons: Treatment of “De Novo” Stenosis in Large Vessel Coronary Artery Disease
Previous Article in Journal
Characteristics and Risk Factors of Delayed Perforation in Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Gastric Cancer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 13
Issue 5
10.3390/jcm13051318
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Atrial Fibrillation Catheter Ablation among Cancer Patients: Utilization Trends and In-Hospital Outcomes

by
Gilad Margolis
1,2,*,†,
Ofir Goldhaber
1,†,
Mark Kazatsker
1,2,
Ofer Kobo
1,
Ariel Roguin
1 and
Eran Leshem
1,2
1
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Hillel Yaffe Medical Center, The Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion, Haifa 38100, Israel
2
Cardiac Electrophysiology Unit, Hillel Yaffe Medical Center, Hadera 38100, Israel
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors have contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(5), 1318; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13051318
Submission received: 18 January 2024 / Revised: 18 February 2024 / Accepted: 22 February 2024 / Published: 26 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Cardiology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation in cancer patients has been evaluated in very few studies. We aimed to investigate utilization trends and in-hospital outcomes of AF catheter ablation among cancer patients in a large US inpatient registry. Methods: Utilizing the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database, patients who underwent AF catheter ablation between 2012 and 2019 were identified. Sociodemographic, clinical data, in-hospital procedures and outcomes were collected. Baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were compared between patients with and without cancer. Results: An estimated total of 67,915 patients underwent AF catheter ablation between 2012 and 2019 in the US. Of them, 950 (1.4%) had a cancer diagnosis. Patients with a cancer diagnosis were older and had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, CHA2DS2-VASc and ATRIA bleeding indices scores. A higher rate of total complications was observed in cancer patients (10.5% vs. 7.9, p < 0.001), driven mainly by more bleeding and infectious complications. However, no significant differences in cardiac or neurological complications as well as in-hospital mortality rates were observed and were relatively low in both groups. Conclusions: AF catheter ablation in cancer patients is associated with higher bleeding and infectious complication rates, but not with increased cardiac complications or in-hospital mortality in a US nationwide, all-comer registry.

1. Introduction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia affecting 2–4% of the general population [1]. Cancer patients have an increased risk for developing AF, varying according to cancer type and stage [2,3]. Conversely, elevated cancer risk was observed among patients presenting with new-onset AF [4]. The exact pathophysiological mechanisms leading to AF in cancer patients are not yet fully understood. Suggested underlying mechanisms include a similar risk factor profile for both AF and cancer development, inflammatory and paraneoplastic processes, autonomic nervous system imbalance or, less commonly, direct metastatic invasion of the tumor to the heart and surrounding tissues [5]. In addition, both medical and surgical cancer treatments were implicated as predisposing factors for AF development [6,7]. A recent analysis of a very large pharmacovigilance database identified 19 anticancer drugs, ¾ of which are used in hematologic malignancies, significantly associated with AF development [8]. The mechanisms by which anticancer drugs induce AF are not established. Proposed mechanisms include direct or indirect effects on cardiac ion channels, affecting action potential duration; oxidative stress and activation of inflammation pathways, which can cause myocardial fibrosis and atrial remodeling, promoting AF [9]. Surgical therapy for cancer was also implicated with AF development. The incidence of perioperative AF in cancer surgery ranges from 4 to 5% for cholecystectomy, 9 to 11% for esophagectomy, and 6 to 28% for lung resection [6]. However, the AF incidence in the general population undergoing noncardiac surgery ranges between 10 and 20%, attributed to transient perioperative autonomic imbalance and inflammation [10]. The direct effect of cancer on perioperative AF risk is yet to be determined.
Coexisting AF in cancer patients has been associated with increased risk for both bleeding and thromboembolism [6]. Current guidelines recommend that before deciding on anticoagulation for individuals with cancer, available risk stratification tools such as the CHA2DS2-VASc score (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75 (2 points); diabetes mellitus, stroke (2 points); vascular disease, age 65–74 years, sex category (female)) and bleeding risk scores should be taken into account along with cancer stage, drug–drug interactions and patient preferences among other considerations [5].
Rhythm control for symptomatic AF in cancer patients portends a therapeutic challenge. Significant drug–drug interactions with concomitant anticancer therapy may preclude the use of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) [11]. Catheter ablation for AF is an effective and safe treatment strategy for symptomatic patients who do not benefit from AADs [1]. However, to date, very few studies have evaluated AF catheter ablation among cancer patients [12,13,14,15,16,17]. Current guidelines and expert opinion positions papers do not provide clear recommendations for AF rhythm control in cancer patients, and specific recommendations for catheter ablation are lacking [1,5,18,19].
In this study, we aimed to analyze trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of AF catheter ablation procedures among cancer patients using the US National In-Patient Sample (NIS) database.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Source

The data were drawn from the NIS, the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The NIS database includes only non-identified data. Therefore, this study was deemed exempt from institutional review by the local Human Research Committee. The NIS is the largest collection of all-payer data on inpatient hospitalizations in the United States. The data set represents an ≈20% stratified sample of all inpatient discharges from US hospitals [20]. This information includes patient-and hospital-level factors such as patient demographic characteristics, primary and secondary diagnoses and procedures, comorbidities, length of stay (LOS), hospital region, hospital teaching status, hospital bed size, and cost of hospitalization. National estimates can be calculated using the patient and hospital level sampling weights that are provided by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project.
For the purpose of this study, we obtained data for the years 2012 to 2019. The International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification/Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-CM/PCS) was fully implemented from the last quarter of 2015 and thereafter for reporting diagnoses and procedures in the NIS database during the study period.
From 2012 to 2015 (3rd quarter), hospitalizations were analyzed using the ICD-9-CM/PCS coding system and, subsequently, with the ICD-10-CM/PCS coding system. For each index hospitalization, the database provides a principal discharge diagnosis and a maximum of 39 additional diagnoses, in addition to a maximum of 25 procedures.

2.2. Study Population and Variables

We identified patients aged ≥18 years who had a primary diagnosis of atrial fibrillation using ICD-10-CM codes: I480, I481, I482, I4891 or ICD-9-CM code: 427.31 and underwent ablation using ICD-10-PCS codes: 02583ZZ, 02563ZZ, 02573ZZ, 025T3ZZ, 025S3ZZ or ICD-9-CM code: 37.34. Using ICD-10-CM and ICD-9-CM codes (provided in detail in Table S1) we identified and excluded patients who had any of the following diagnoses: supraventricular tachycardia, atrioventricular nodal tachycardia, ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, atrial flutter, ventricular or atrial premature beats, Wolff–Parkinson–White syndrome. To avoid inclusion of patients undergoing atrioventricular junction ablation only (as a “pace and ablate” strategy), we excluded patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) in situ. We also excluded patients who underwent CIED implantation during their hospitalization to avoid attributing their complications to the ablation procedure. A similar data extraction methodology was previously utilized to identify patients undergoing AF ablation in the NIS registry [21,22].
The following patient demographics were collected from the database: age, sex, and ethnicity. ICD-10-CM codes and ICD-9-CM codes (Table S1) were used to identify different comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, chronic heart failure, chronic kidney disease, obstructive sleep apnea, obesity, chronic pulmonary disease, anemia, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and valvular heart disease.
For the purposes of calculating the Charlson–Deyo comorbidity index, additional comorbidities were identified from the database using ICD-10-CM codes and ICD-9-CM codes. The Charlson–Deyo comorbidity index is a modification of the Charlson comorbidity index, containing 19 comorbidity conditions with differential weights, with a total score ranging from 0 to 38 [23,24,25]. Detailed information on the Charlson–Deyo comorbidity index is provided in Table S2. Higher Charlson–Deyo comorbidity index scores indicate a greater burden of comorbid diseases and are associated with increased risk of death within 1 year after admission. The index has been used extensively in studies from administrative databases, with proven validity in predicting short-and long-term outcomes [26,27,28]. In addition, the CHA2DS2-VASc score was calculated for each patient. We calculated ATRIA bleeding risk scores (anemia, severe kidney disease, age ≥ 75, history of hemorrhage and hypertension) for each patient based on information available in the NIS dataset. We were not able to calculate the more commonly used HAS-BLED score, as the NIS does not provide information regarding patients’ blood tests and medications. The ATRIA and HAS-BLED bleeding risk scores were recently evaluated among cancer patients, with comparable performance in predicting any and major bleeding events [29].
We obtained information on the presence of a known malignancy for each patient, based on ICD-10-CM codes and ICD-9-CM codes outlined in Table S3. Malignancies were categorized into two groups: hematologic malignancies and solid malignancies.
The primary outcome in this study was in-hospital complications including death. Secondary outcomes included sub-groups of complications, as well as LOS and total charges. Using ICD-10-CM/PCS codes and ICD-9-CM/PCS codes (Table S1), the following in-hospital complications were identified: hemopericardium, tamponade, acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, periprocedural hemorrhage/hematoma requiring transfusion, vascular injury (e.g., arteriovenous fistula, aneurysm or pseudoaneurysm), post-procedure respiratory failure, periprocedural diaphragmatic disorder, periprocedural stroke and sepsis.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Frequencies and proportions of the different demographic, clinical, and hospital-related variables were calculated and weighted to reflect national estimates using discharge sample weights provided by the NIS [27]. These estimates were compared according to cancer/non-cancer grouping using the Pearson’s chi-square test and independent-samples t-test for categorical variables and continuous variables, respectively. Generalized linear models were used to analyze annual trends. For all statistical analyses, we utilized SPSS® software version 23 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Baseline Characteristics of the Study Population

A total of 13,583 hospitalizations for AF ablation across the United States during the study period were included in the analysis. After implementation of the weighting method, these represented an estimated total of 67,915 hospitalizations for AF ablation. Most patients (61%) were men, and the mean age of the cohort was 64.4 + 10.9 years. Of the total estimated cohort, 950 patients (1.4%) had a diagnosis of cancer.
Baseline characteristics of the study population according to cancer/non-cancer grouping are presented in detail in Table 1. Older age, male gender, heart failure, chronic kidney disease and anemia were more prevalent in the cancer group. In addition, cancer patients had both higher CHA2DS2-VASc (2.72 ± 1.36 vs. 2.32 ± 1.45, p < 0.001) and ATRIA bleeding scores (1.91 ± 1.86 vs. 1.21 ± 1.37, p < 0.001; Table 1).
Among cancer patients who underwent AF ablation during the study period, 495 (52%) had a solid malignancy, while 455 (48%) had a hematologic malignancy (Figure 1). Among solid malignancies, prostate cancer and lung cancer were the most frequent, and leukemia was the most frequent of the hematologic malignancies (Figure 1).
The annual trend in AF catheter ablations for cancer patients gradually increased from 1.05% (n = 115) in 2012 to 2.03% (n = 170) in 2019 (p < 0.001; Figure 2).

3.2. In-Hospital Course and Outcomes by Cancer/Non-Cancer Groups

In-hospital complications occurred in 5400 patients (8%) admitted for AF ablation. Compared with those without cancer, patients who had a cancer diagnosis had a higher unadjusted rate of total in-hospital complications (10.5% vs. 7.9%, p < 0.001). The higher complication rate in the cancer group was driven by an increased rate of bleeding (3.2% vs. 1.8%. p = 0.002) and infectious complications (2.1% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.001; Table 2). No significant differences were observed in cardiac complications, periprocedural stroke and in-hospital mortality rates, which were low in both groups (Table 2). The average LOS in the hospital was longer in cancer patients compared with non-cancer patients (4.91 + 5.8 vs. 2.75 + 3.05, Table 2).
Analysis of in-hospital complications by cancer type showed no significant difference in the total complication rate between patients with solid or hematologic malignancies (10.1% vs. 11%, p = 0.36). However, patients with hematologic cancer had a significantly higher rate of bleeding complications, while those with solid cancer had higher rates of post-procedural respiratory failure and infectious complications (Figure 3).

4. Discussion

Using data from the NIS, the largest all-payer inpatient database in the United States, we analyzed a weighted total of 67,915 catheter ablation procedures for AF, between January 2012 and December 2019. Real-world nationwide data showed that 950 patients (1.4%) undergoing AF ablation had a cancer diagnosis. Annual trend analysis showed a gradual and significant increase in AF catheter ablations for cancer patients between 2012 and 2019. Cancer patients undergoing AF catheter ablation were older, had more comorbidities and elevated thrombotic as well as bleeding risks, reflected by higher CHA2DS2-VASc and ATRIA bleeding indices, compared to their non-cancer counterparts. However, despite a higher rate of total complications among cancer patients, driven by infectious and bleeding complications, no significant differences were observed in cardiac complications, periprocedural stroke or in-hospital mortality rates.
Current guidelines recommend pursuing rhythm control in symptomatic AF patients [1]. However, this may be challenging in cancer patients who also have AF. Maintaining sinus rhythm with anti-arrhythmic medications may involve significant drug–drug interactions with anti-cancer agents [11]. There is scarce data on the efficacy of catheter ablation in this population. Nevertheless, observational data suggests that catheter ablation is equally effective in patients with or without a cancer history [15,16].
Very few studies assessed the safety of AF catheter ablation in cancer patients with discrepant results. Giustozzi et al. showed higher risk for clinically relevant periprocedural bleeding compared to non-cancer patients in 21 cancer patients who underwent AF catheter ablation [14]. In two other studies, the frequency of periprocedural bleeding was similar between cancer and non-cancer patients [15,16]. Of note, different periprocedural anticoagulation protocols were utilized in these studies, as no such protocol was ever verified in cancer patients. In our analysis, the most common periprocedural complications were vascular/bleeding complications in both cancer and non-cancer patients. Previous studies also showed that the most prevalent complications of atrial fibrillation ablations are vascular injuries, which could be potentially mitigated by ultrasound guided vascular access [30,31]. This could be particularly pertinent for cancer patients, which, in our study, had a higher rate of bleeding complications compared to non-cancer patients. We do not have data on the anticoagulation regimen given during and after the ablation in our cohort. Notably, the excess bleeding we observed was in patients with hematologic malignancies, which constituted almost half of patients, a higher proportion than in previous studies [12,13,14,15,16]. In a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions, leukemia diagnosis was associated with higher periprocedural bleeding complications [32]. Whether hematologic cancer patients are at higher risk for bleeding complications in AF ablations needs to be evaluated in future studies.
Infectious outcomes were not reported in prior studies of AF ablation in cancer patients, who are potentially immunocompromised, due to both disease and treatment [5]. In our study, we report, for the first time, a non-negligible rate of periprocedural infectious complications in cancer patients (2.1%), significantly higher than in non-cancer patients (0.5%). To date, there is no recommendation regarding periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing AF ablation [33]. Guidelines for vascular and interventional radiology procedures recommend against antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing cardiac procedures (e.g., coronary angioplasty), but give a IIb indication for antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing solid tumor radiofrequency ablation, with the rationale being that thermal injury during this procedure may create a hospitable environment for bacteria [34]. Whether cancer patients undergoing AF ablation need periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis should be evaluated in future studies.
Recently, Thotamgari et al. [17] evaluated AF ablation procedure outcomes in 750 cancer patients identified in the NIS database between the years 2016 and 2019. Utilizing propensity score matching technique, they reported a higher in-hospital mortality rate in cancer patients compared with non-cancer patients (2% vs. 0.7%). Importantly, patients with in situ CIEDs were not excluded from their analysis. There are no specific ICD 9/10 codes for AV node ablation, so it is possible that such procedures were included in their analysis. As AV node ablation is usually reserved for the older and sicker patients [1,19], the possibility of selection bias resulting in an unsound signal of excess mortality is conceivable. This could potentially explain their discrepant results with ours as well as with previous studies [12,13,14,15,16].

5. Limitations

Several limitations should be acknowledged. The NIS database is a retrospective administrative database that contains discharge-level records and, as such, is susceptible to coding errors. A lack of information about patients’ cancer status in the NIS prevents us from distinguishing between patients with active cancer and patients with inactive disease, as well as concurrent anti-neoplastic treatment.
Additionally, the NIS database lacks granularity regarding the type of ablation performed (e.g., pulmonary vein isolation only or with additional substrate modification) or the type of energy used during ablation, such as thermal energy (e.g., cryoablation, radiofrequency) or nonthermal energy (e.g., pulse field ablation). However, to date, no major safety differences were observed between different ablation approaches or energy delivery methods [35,36,37]. Additionally, no data were available regarding the number of pulmonary veins isolated during each procedure.
In addition, our study included a relatively small sample of cancer patients who underwent AF ablation procedures. Nonetheless, with 950 cancer patients, this is the largest cohort reported to date in this population [12,13,14,15,16,17].
We could only capture events that occurred in the same index hospitalization. The NIS does not include any follow-up data, nor does it include the exact timing of in-hospital outcomes during hospitalization (e.g., periprocedural stroke timing). All data are intentionally non-identified. The NIS database also does not include detailed information about patients’ clinical characteristics, medication, blood tests, and so on. We had no data about anticoagulation regimens during the peri-procedural period. These limitations are counterbalanced by the real-world, nationwide nature of the data, lack of selection bias, and absence of reporting bias introduced by selective publication of results from specialized centers. These results should not infer causation of periprocedural risk by malignancy, but merely present a real-world association that requires randomized trials for validation.

6. Conclusions

The number of cancer patients undergoing AF catheter ablation procedures in the US increased steadily during the study period of 2012–2019. AF catheter ablation for cancer patients was associated with higher bleeding and infectious complication rates, but not with increased cardiac complications or in-hospital mortality in a nationwide, all-comer registry. These findings suggest that catheter ablation is a safe treatment modality for cancer patients who also experience AF.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm13051318/s1, Table S1: ICD-10 and ICD-9 CM/PCS codes used in data extraction; Table S2: ICD-10 CM and ICD-9 CM codes for conditions incorporated in Deyo-CCI, and scoring system used to compute CCI scores; Table S3: ICD-10 CM and ICD-9 CM codes for primary cancer site diagnosis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.M., O.G. and E.L.; Methodology, G.M., O.G. and E.L.; Validation, G.M., O.G., O.K., A.R. and E.L.; Formal Analysis, G.M., O.G. and E.L.; Investigation, G.M., O.G., M.K., O.K., A.R. and E.L.; Resources, G.M., O.G., O.K. and E.L.; Data Curation, G.M., O.G., M.K., O.K., A.R. and E.L.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, G.M. and O.G.; Writing—Review and Editing, G.M., O.G., M.K., O.K., A.R. and E.L.; Visualization, G.M., O.G., A.R. and E.L.; Supervision, G.M., A.R. and E.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The NIS database includes only non-identified data. Therefore, this study was deemed exempt from institutional review by the local Human Research Committee.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The national database data used for this study, analytic methods, and study materials will not be made available to other researchers for purposes of reproducing the results or replicating the procedure because of restrictions on the sharing of data in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Data Use Agreement. The NIS database is publicly available for purchase, and the transparent and detailed methods that we have described make it possible for anyone who wishes to do so to replicate this study and reproduce our results.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Hindricks, G.; Potpara, T.; Dagres, N.; Arbelo, E.; Bax, J.J.; Blomström-Lundqvist, C.; Boriani, G.; Castella, M.; Dan, G.A.; Dilaveris, P.E.; et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur. Heart J. 2021, 42, 373–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Yun, J.P.; Choi, E.-K.; Han, K.-D.; Park, S.H.; Jung, J.-H.; Park, S.H.; Ahn, H.-J.; Lim, J.-H.; Lee, S.-R.; Oh, S. Risk of Atrial Fibrillation According to Cancer Type: A Nationwide Population-Based Study. JACC Cardio Oncol. 2021, 3, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Guha, A.; Fradley, M.G.; Dent, S.F.; Weintraub, N.L.; Lustberg, M.B.; Alonso, A.; Addison, D. Incidence, risk factors, and mortality of atrial fibrillation in breast cancer: A SEER-Medicare analysis. Eur. Heart J. 2022, 43, 300–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Conen, D.; Wong, J.A.; Sandhu, R.K.; Cook, N.R.; Lee, I.-M.; Buring, J.E.; Albert, C.M. Risk of Malignant Cancer Among Women with New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation. JAMA Cardiol. 2016, 1, 389–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Lyon, A.R.; López-Fernández, T.; Couch, L.S.; Asteggiano, R.; Aznar, M.C.; Bergler-Klein, J.; Boriani, G.; Cardinale, D.; Cordoba, R.; Cosyns, B.; et al. ESC Scientific Document Group 2022 ESC Guidelines on cardio-oncology developed in collaboration with the European Hematology Association (EHA), the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ESTRO) and the International Cardio-Oncology Society (IC-OS). Eur. Heart J. 2022, 43, 4229–4361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Guha, A.; Dey, A.K.; Jneid, H.; Ibarz, J.P.; Addison, D.; Fradley, M. Atrial fibrillation in the era of emerging cancer therapies. Eur. Heart J. 2019, 40, 3007–3010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Farmakis, D.; Parissis, J.; Filippatos, G. Insights into onco-cardiology: Atrial fibrillation in cancer. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2014, 63, 945–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Alexandre, J.; Salem, J.E.; Moslehi, J.; Sassier, M.; Ropert, C.; Cautela, J.; Thuny, F.; Ederhy, S.; Cohen, A.; Damaj, G.; et al. Identification of anticancer drugs associated with atrial fibrillation: Analysis of the WHO pharmacovigilance database. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacother. 2021, 7, 312–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Alexandre, J.; Moslehi, J.J.; Bersell, K.R.; Funck-Brentano, C.; Roden, D.M.; Salem, J.E. Anticancer drug-induced cardiac rhythm disorders: Current knowledge and basic underlying mechanisms. Pharmacol. Ther. 2018, 189, 89–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Dobrev, D.; Aguilar, M.; Heijman, J.; Guichard, J.B.; Nattel, S. Postoperative atrial fibrillation: Mechanisms, manifestations and management. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 2019, 16, 417–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Asnani, A.; Manning, A.; Mansour, M.; Ruskin, J.; Hochberg, E.P.; Ptaszek, L.M. Management of atrial fibrillation in patients taking targeted cancer therapies. Cardiooncology 2017, 3, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kanmanthareddy, A.; Vallakati, A.; Reddy Yeruva, M.; Dixit, S.; DI Biase, L.; Mansour, M.; Boolani, H.; Gunda, S.; Bunch, T.J.; Day, J.D.; et al. Pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation in the postpneumonectomy population: A feasibility, safety, and outcomes study. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2015, 26, 385–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Shabtaie, S.A.; Luis, S.A.; Ward, R.C.; Karki, R.; Connolly, H.M.; Pellikka, P.A.; Kapa, S.; Asirvatham, S.J.; Packer, D.L.; DeSimone, C.V. Catheter Ablation in Patients with Neuroendocrine (Carcinoid) Tumors and Carcinoid Heart Disease: Outcomes, Peri-Procedural Complications, and Management Strategies. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2021, 7, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Giustozzi, M.; Ali, H.; Reboldi, G.; Balla, C.; Foresti, S.; de Ambroggi, G.; Lupo, P.P.; Agnelli, G.; Cappato, R. Safety of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in cancer survivors. J. Interv. Card. Electrophysiol. 2021, 60, 419–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Eitel, C.; Sciacca, V.; Bartels, N.; Saraei, R.; Fink, T.; Keelani, A.; Gaßmann, A.; Kuck, K.-H.; Vogler, J.; Heeger, C.-H.; et al. Safety and Efficacy of Cryoballoon Based Pulmonary Vein Isolation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and a History of Cancer. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 3669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ganatra, S.; Abraham, S.; Kumar, A.; Parikh, R.; Patel, R.; Khadke, S.; Kumar, A.; Liu, V.; Diaz, A.N.R.; Neilan, T.G.; et al. Efficacy and safety of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with history of cancer. Cardiooncology 2023, 9, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Thotamgari, S.R.; Sheth, A.R.; Patel, H.P.; Sandhyavenu, H.; Patel, B.; Grewal, U.S.; Bhuiyan, M.A.N.; Dani, S.S.; Dominic, P. Safety of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with cancer: A nationwide cohort study. Postgrad. Med. 2023, 135, 562–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. López-Fernández, T.; Martín-García, A.; Roldán Rabadán, I.; Mitroi, C.; Mazón Ramos, P.; Díez-Villanueva, P.; Escobar Cervantes, C.; Alonso Martín, C.; Alonso Salinas, G.L.; Arenas, M.; et al. Expert reviewers Atrial fibrillation in active cancer patients: Expert position paper and recommendations. Rev. Esp. Cardiol. (Engl. Ed.) 2019, 72, 749–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. January, C.T.; Wann, L.S.; Calkins, H.; Chen, L.Y.; Cigarroa, J.E.; Cleveland, J.C.; Ellinor, P.T.; Ezekowitz, M.D.; Field, M.E.; Furie, K.L.; et al. 2019 AHA/ACC/HRS focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: A report of the american college of cardiology/american heart association task force on clinical practice guidelines and the heart rhythm society. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019, 74, 104–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Steiner, C.; Elixhauser, A.; Schnaier, J. The healthcare cost and utilization project: An overview. Eff. Clin. Pract. 2002, 5, 143–151. [Google Scholar]
  21. Deshmukh, A.; Patel, N.J.; Pant, S.; Shah, N.; Chothani, A.; Mehta, K.; Grover, P.; Singh, V.; Vallurupalli, S.; Savani, G.T.; et al. In-hospital complications associated with catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in the United States between 2000 and 2010: Analysis of 93 801 procedures. Circulation 2013, 128, 2104–2112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rozen, G.; Elbaz-Greener, G.; Marai, I.; Andria, N.; Hosseini, S.M.; Biton, Y.; Heist, E.K.; Ruskin, J.N.; Gavrilov, Y.; Carasso, S.; et al. Utilization and complications of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2020, 9, e015721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Deyo, R.A.; Cherkin, D.C.; Ciol, M.A. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1992, 45, 613–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Glasheen, W.P.; Cordier, T.; Gumpina, R.; Haugh, G.; Davis, J.; Renda, A. Charlson Comorbidity Index: ICD-9 Update and ICD-10 Translation. Am. Health Drug Benefits 2019, 12, 188–197. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  25. Chu, Y.-T.; Ng, Y.-Y.; Wu, S.-C. Comparison of different comorbidity measures for use with administrative data in predicting short- and long-term mortality. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2010, 10, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Radovanovic, D.; Seifert, B.; Urban, P.; Eberli, F.R.; Rickli, H.; Bertel, O.; Puhan, M.A.; Erne, P.; AMIS Plus Investigators. Validity of Charlson Comorbidity Index in patients hospitalised with acute coronary syndrome. Insights from the nationwide AMIS Plus registry 2002–2012. Heart 2014, 100, 288–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Hosseini, S.M.; Moazzami, K.; Rozen, G.; Vaid, J.; Saleh, A.; Heist, K.E.; Vangel, M.; Ruskin, J.N. Utilization and in-hospital complications of cardiac resynchronization therapy: Trends in the United States from 2003 to 2013. Eur. Heart J. 2017, 38, 2122–2128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Navi, B.B.; Reiner, A.S.; Kamel, H.; Iadecola, C.; Okin, P.M.; Tagawa, S.T.; Panageas, K.S.; DeAngelis, L.M. Arterial thromboembolic events preceding the diagnosis of cancer in older persons. Blood 2019, 133, 781–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Pastori, D.; Marang, A.; Bisson, A.; Herbert, J.; Lip, G.Y.H.; Fauchier, L. Performance of the HAS-BLED, ORBIT, and ATRIA Bleeding Risk Scores on a Cohort of 399 344 Hospitalized Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Cancer: Data from the French National Hospital Discharge Database. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2022, 11, e026388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Kupo, P.; Riesz, T.J.; Saghy, L.; Vamos, M.; Bencsik, G.; Makai, A.; Kohari, M.; Benak, A.; Miklos, M.; Pap, R. Ultrasound guidance for femoral venous access in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation: A quasi-randomized study. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2023, 34, 1177–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Kupó, P.; Pap, R.; Sághy, L.; Tényi, D.; Bálint, A.; Debreceni, D.; Basu-Ray, I.; Komócsi, A. Ultrasound guidance for femoral venous access in electrophysiology procedures-systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Interv. Card. Electrophysiol. 2020, 59, 407–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Potts, J.; Mohamed, M.O.; Lopez Mattei, J.C.; Iliescu, C.A.; Konopleva, M.; Rashid, M.; Bagur, R.; Mamas, M.A. Percutaneous coronary intervention and in-hospital outcomes in patients with leukemia: A nationwide analysis. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2020, 96, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Calkins, H.; Hindricks, G.; Cappato, R.; Kim, Y.-H.; Saad, E.B.; Aguinaga, L.; Akar, J.G.; Badhwar, V.; Brugada, J.; Camm, J.; et al. 2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: Executive summary. Heart Rhythm. 2017, 14, e445–e494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Chehab, M.A.; Thakor, A.S.; Tulin-Silver, S.; Connolly, B.L.; Cahill, A.M.; Ward, T.J.; Padia, S.A.; Kohi, M.P.; Midia, M.; Chaudry, G.; et al. Adult and Pediatric Antibiotic Prophylaxis during Vascular and IR Procedures: A Society of Interventional Radiology Practice Parameter Update Endorsed by the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe and the Canadian Association for Interventional Radiology. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2018, 29, 1483–1501.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Kuck, K.H.; Brugada, J.; Fürnkranz, A.; Metzner, A.; Ouyang, F.; Chun, K.R.; Elvan, A.; Arentz, T.; Bestehorn, K.; Pocock, S.J.; et al. Cryoballoon or Radiofrequency Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 374, 2235–2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Reddy, V.Y.; Gerstenfeld, E.P.; Natale, A.; Whang, W.; Cuoco, F.A.; Patel, C.; Mountantonakis, S.E.; Gibson, D.N.; Harding, J.D.; Ellis, C.R.; et al. Pulsed Field or Conventional Thermal Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2023, 389, 1660–1671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cutler, M.J.; Sattayaprasert, P.; Pivato, E.; Jabri, A.; AlMahameed, S.T.; Ziv, O. Low voltage-guided ablation of posterior wall improves 5-year arrhythmia-free survival in persistent atrial fibrillation. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2022, 33, 2475–2484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 13 01318 g001
Figure 1. Cancer distribution by solid/hematologic malignancy.
Figure 1. Cancer distribution by solid/hematologic malignancy.
Jcm 13 01318 g001
Jcm 13 01318 g002
Figure 2. Annual trend in AF catheter ablations for cancer patients between 2012 and 2019.
Figure 2. Annual trend in AF catheter ablations for cancer patients between 2012 and 2019.
Jcm 13 01318 g002
Jcm 13 01318 g003
Figure 3. In-hospital complications by cancer type.
Figure 3. In-hospital complications by cancer type.
Jcm 13 01318 g003
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients undergoing AF catheter ablation.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients undergoing AF catheter ablation.
VariableNon-Cancer PatientsCancer Patientsp Value
(n = 66,965)(n = 950)
Age (years)64 ± 1169 ± 9<0.001
Female26,140 (39%)310 (33%)<0.001
White ethnicity57,250 (86%)840 (88%)0.006
Diabetes mellitus 13,945 (21%)225 (24%)0.017
Hypertension38,265 (57%)500 (53%)0.003
Heart failure16,585 (25%)370 (39%)<0.001
Valvular heart disease8385 (13%)140 (15%)0.023
Chronic kidney disease6655 (10%)170 (18%)<0.001
Chronic Pulmonary Disease9875 (15%)195 (21%)<0.001
Obesity (BMI > 30)15,430 (23%)215 (23%)0.398
Obstructive sleep apnea14,985 (22%)190 (20%)0.044
Prior stroke1155 (1.7%)15 (1.6%)0.414
Prior myocardial infarction3760 (6%)60 (6%)0.003
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy610 (0.9%)NoneNA
Peripheral artery disease2670 (4%)55 (6%)0.003
Anemia4000 (6%)195 (21%)<0.001
Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 215,700 (24%)900 (95%)<0.001
CHA2DS2-VASc score2.32 ± 1.452.72 ± 1.36<0.001
0–121,455 (32%)185 (19%)<0.001
≥245,510 (68%)765 (81%)
ATRIA bleeding score1.21 ± 1.371.91 ± 1.86<0.001
0–151,130 (76%)520 (55%)<0.001
≥215,835 (24%)430 (45%)
Income percentile
0–2513,700 (21%)150 (16%)0.001
26–5015,540 (23%)255 (27%)
51–7517,610 (26%)240 (25%)
76–10020,115 (30%)305 (32%)
Teaching hospital55,000 (82%)770 (81%)0.206
Hospital region
South/west37,900 (57%)515 (54%)0.075
Midwest/northeast29,065 (43%)435 (46%)
Table 2. In-hospital diagnoses and procedures of patients undergoing AF catheter ablation with/without cancer.
Table 2. In-hospital diagnoses and procedures of patients undergoing AF catheter ablation with/without cancer.
VariableNon-Cancer Patients Cancer Patientsp Value
(n = 66,965)(n = 950)
Total complications5300 (7.9%)100 (10.5%)0.002
Cardiac complications
Cardiogenic shock 80 (0.1%)NoneNA
Cardiac arrest100 (0.1%)NoneNA
Acute heart failure445 (0.7%)≤10NA
Hemopericardium/cardiac tamponade1085 (1.6%)≤10NA
Vascular complications
Hemorrhage/hematoma/blood transfusion1230 (1.8%)30 (3.2%)0.002
Vascular injury1065 (1.6%)15 (1.6%)0.557
Respiratory complications
Post-procedural respiratory failure/invasive ventilation > 24 h1125 (1.6%)20 (2.1%)0.188
Diaphragmatic disorders190 (0.2%)NoneNA
Neurologic complications (stroke)95 (0.1%)≤10NA
Infectious complications (bacteremia, sepsis)530 (0.8%)20 (2.1%)<0.001
Length of stay2.75 ± 3.054.91 ± 5.8<0.001
In-hospital mortality165 (0.2%)≤10NA
NA = not applicable.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Margolis, G.; Goldhaber, O.; Kazatsker, M.; Kobo, O.; Roguin, A.; Leshem, E. Atrial Fibrillation Catheter Ablation among Cancer Patients: Utilization Trends and In-Hospital Outcomes. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 1318. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13051318

AMA Style

Margolis G, Goldhaber O, Kazatsker M, Kobo O, Roguin A, Leshem E. Atrial Fibrillation Catheter Ablation among Cancer Patients: Utilization Trends and In-Hospital Outcomes. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(5):1318. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13051318

Chicago/Turabian Style

Margolis, Gilad, Ofir Goldhaber, Mark Kazatsker, Ofer Kobo, Ariel Roguin, and Eran Leshem. 2024. "Atrial Fibrillation Catheter Ablation among Cancer Patients: Utilization Trends and In-Hospital Outcomes" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 5: 1318. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13051318

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop