Wang, Weijia

Abstract Aims Pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation offers shorter procedural times and improved safety compared with thermal ablation, but the optimal anaesthesia strategy remains uncertain. Most centres in the USA use general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation, whereas monitored anaesthesia care without endotracheal intubation may be a safe and efficient alternative. Objectives To compare procedural efficiency and safety between monitored anaesthesia care and general anaesthesia for pulsed field ablation. Methods and results Consecutive adults who underwent pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation between 2024 and 2025 at Marshfield Clinic Health System were included. The anaesthesia approach was determined by operator preference. Procedural times, medication use, complications, and patient tolerance were recorded prospectively. Among 200 patients, 100 received monitored anaesthesia care without endotracheal intubation, and 100 received general anaesthesia. The mean age was 67 years, 42% were female, and the mean body mass index was 33 kilograms per square metre. Monitored anaesthesia care shortened case duration (77 vs. 95 min; P < 0.001) and laboratory time (118 vs. 153 min; P = 0.002) and required fewer adjunct medications (P < 0.001). Twenty-five procedures (25%) were challenging due to cough or motion but were all completed safely. Complications occurred in one monitored anaesthesia care case and six general anaesthesia cases (P = 0.054). Pulmonary vein isolation was achieved in all patients. Conclusion Monitored anaesthesia care without endotracheal intubation was safe, efficient, and resource-sparing compared with general anaesthesia for pulsed field atrial fibrillation ablation.

ABSTRACT Background Optimal management of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) prior to implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) remains controversial. Objective To determine whether a strategy of minimal interruption of DOAC before cardiac CIED implantation is associated with improved clinical outcomes compared to uninterrupted DOAC use. Methods The electronic clinical records of 310 patients who were on DOAC and underwent CIED implantation were evaluated. The patients were separated into 2 groups: patients in Group 1 had minimal DOAC interruption (DOAC held < 24 h before procedure), while patients in Group 2 continued DOAC before procedure. Resumption of DOAC in both groups was on the same day of the procedure or the next morning at the operator's discretion. Clinically significant pocket hematoma and thromboembolic events were compared. Results Among the 310 patients, 71 (22.9%) of them had DOAC held < 24 h before procedure, while DOAC was continued without interruption in 239 (77.1%) in the periprocedural period. Clinically significant pocket hematomas were found in 1 patient (1.4%) in the DOAC interrupted group and 24 (10.0%) in the DOAC continuous group ( p = 0.046). Low thromboembolic events were observed in both groups: 0 in the minimally interrupted group and 1 (0.4%) in the un‐interrupted group ( p > 0.05). Conclusion The bleeding risk in our cohort of patients who underwent CIED implantation with the uninterrupted DOAC approach is higher than previously reported in the literature. A minimally interrupted approach appears to mitigate this risk without significantly increasing the risk of thromboembolism.