Abstract Background and Aims Stroke and systemic embolism are recognized but poorly characterized complications of atrial fibrillation (AF) and left atrial flutter (AFL) catheter ablation. Their incidence, outcomes, and procedural associations remain insufficiently defined. Methods Retrospective global registry was initiated by the European Heart Rhythm Association Scientific Committee. A secure database captured data from ablation centres worldwide on general AF and left AFL ablation activity, as well as detailed information on patients with symptomatic embolic events between 2017 and 2024. Results Overall, 204 centres reported 335 743 ablation procedures and 550 embolic events (incidence 0.16%). Centre-level rate ranged from 0% to 3.1%. Most events were cerebral (94%), followed by peripheral (5%), and combined (1%). Coronary air embolism accounted for 62% of all peripheral events. Intraprocedural events occurred in 93 patients (17%), within 72 h in 357 (78%) and beyond 72 h in 100 (22%); 128 cases (23%) were diagnosed after hospital discharge. Nonparoxysmal AF (0.23% vs 0.15%; P < .001), centre experience, and ablation energy source (radiofrequency, 0.16%; cryoballoon, 0.16%; pulsed field ablation, 0.25%; laserballoon, 0.88%; P < .001) were associated with embolic risk. Median NIHSS score after stroke was 4 (interquartile range, 2–9). Three-month follow-up was available for 518 patients with embolism (95%): 181 (35%) had sequelae and 16 (3%) died. Conclusions Symptomatic embolic events are infrequent but associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Most events occur early, though a substantial proportion arise later. Higher event rates were observed with laser and possibly with pulsed field ablation. A greater centre experience was associated with a lower embolism incidence.
Clinical outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in Lebanon: a retrospective analysis
Background and purpose: Aortic stenosis (AS) poses significant healthcare challenges, particularly in aging populations like Lebanon. Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the primary treatment; however the choice between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical AVR (SAVR) varies based on patient-specific factors. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between TAVR and SAVR in patients with severe AS at a Lebanese tertiary care center. Methods: This retrospective study included 453 patients aged ≥60 with severe AS who underwent either TAVR or SAVR at the American University of Beirut Medical Center from 2011 to 2022. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and hospital readmission rates. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, complications, and changes in echocardiographic parameters. Statistical analysis included Chi-squared tests, t-tests, and propensity score matching. Results: Of the 453 patients, 306 underwent TAVR, and 147 underwent SAVR, with a mean age of 79.0 ± 6.8 years. The TAVR group had higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) scores (4.7 ± 3.2 vs. 2.6 ± 1.7; P < 0.001). TAVR patients had shorter hospital stays (2 [0-93] vs. 6 [4-41] days; P < 0.001), lower 30-day readmission rates (8.2% vs. 18.5%; P = 0.002), and similar all-cause mortality rates (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.14–3.42; P = 0.647). Post-procedural new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) was more common in TAVR group (13.0% vs. 0.6%; P < 0.001), and new-onset atrial fibrillation (Afib) was more frequent in the SAVR group (34% vs. 1%; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the rates of complete heart block (CHB) or pacemaker implantation. The effective orifice area index (EOAi) was higher in the TAVR group (1.2 ± 0.4 vs. 0.9 ± 0.2 cm2/m2; P < 0.001). Major bleeding complications were significantly lower in TAVR patients (7.9% vs. 65.8%; P < 0.001), with no significant differences in neurological events. Conclusions: Both TAVR and SAVR show comparable safety and efficacy, with TAVR offering advantages in terms of recovery time and bleeding risk. These findings support a tailored approach to procedural choice based on individual patient risk profiles.