Anesthetic Techniques for Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation: A Comparative Review.

Atrial fibrillation, the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia, has witnessed significant advancements in treatment modalities, transitioning from invasive procedures like the maze procedure to minimally invasive catheter ablation techniques. This review focuses on recent improvements in anesthetic approaches that enhance outcomes in catheter atrial fibrillation ablation. We highlight the efficacy of contact force sensing catheters with steerable introducer sheaths, which outperform traditional catheters by ensuring more effective contact time and lesion formation. Comparing general anesthesia with conscious sedation, we find that general anesthesia provides superior catheter stability due to reduced respiratory variability, resulting in more effective lesion formation, and reduced pulmonary vein reconnection. The use of high-frequency jet ventilation under general anesthesia, delivering low tidal volumes, effectively minimizes left atrial movement, decreasing catheter displacement and procedure time, and reducing recurrence in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. An alternative, high-frequency low tidal volume ventilation using conventional ventilators, also shows improved catheter stability and lesion durability compared to traditional ventilation methods. However, a detailed comparative study of high-frequency jet ventilation, high-frequency low tidal volume ventilation, and conventional mechanical ventilation in catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation is lacking. This review emphasizes the need for such studies to identify optimal anesthetic techniques, potentially enhancing patient outcomes in atrial fibrillation treatment. Our findings suggest that careful selection of anesthetic methods, including ventilation strategies, plays a crucial role in the success of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation, warranting further research for evidence-based practice.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)