A comparison of general anesthesia versus monitored anesthesia care during catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia

Abstract Background Catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) may be performed under general anesthesia (GA) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC). There is a paucity of data studying these two sedation strategies with respect to intraprocedural characteristics, and outcomes of VT ablation. Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of anesthesia techniques on VT inducibility and outcomes. Methods A single-center, retrospective study of patients undergoing catheter ablation for scar-related VT, from 2016-2022, was conducted. Data collected included demographics, comorbidities, medications, relevant laboratory abnormalities, electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, detailed procedural characteristics, and outcomes. Results One hundred sixty-eight patients who underwent a total of 200 VT ablation procedures were included. The patients undergoing GA had a greater burden of comorbidities including congestive heart failure (77.2% vs. 60.9%), hypertension (66.9% vs. 60.0%), atrial arrhythmias (50.7% vs. 43.8%), diabetes mellitus (21.3% vs. 9.4%), chronic kidney disease (44.1% vs. 31.3%), prior stroke (11.8% vs. 10.9%), myocardial infarction (31.6% vs. 29.7%), pre-existing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (86.8% vs. 71.9%) and had a higher median number of antiarrhythmic drugs at baseline (2 vs. 1) [Figure 1]. There was a greater percentage of patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (58.1% vs. 51.6%) in the GA cohort. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was not different among the two groups (39.3 ± 13.9 vs. 42.5 ± 15.3). The GA group had more hemodynamic instability at baseline (p < 0.01), and during VT induction (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the number of VT induced, or tachycardia cycle length, in each group. Despite higher radiofrequency energy delivery time in the GA group as compared to the MAC group, the GA group had higher VT inducibility post-procedure and were more likely to be discharged on antiarrhythmic drugs. Even though the recurrence of VT was higher in the GA group compared to the MAC group (41.9% vs. 31.3%), the VT-free survival curves were not significantly different by Kaplan-Meier analysis (p=0.19) [Figure 2]. In a multivariate regression analysis, the sedation strategy was not an independent predictor of VT recurrence (p=NS). However, baseline hemodynamic instability was an independent predictor of VT recurrence after accounting for all intraprocedural characteristics (p=0.008). Conclusion Patients undergoing VT ablation under GA have more comorbidities and tend to be on more antiarrhythmic drugs. The GA group had more hemodynamic instability during the procedure and had greater overall VT recurrence, however, not significant in a time-based analysis. The greater overall recurrence in the GA group could be because they represent a sicker population, or the hemodynamics during the procedure preclude adequate ablation of the VT circuit elements.Figure 1Figure 2