Arrhythmias & electrophysiologyCohort study
Use and Safety of Urgent vs Elective Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in the United States
- Registry-based observational study
Authors' conclusion
The rate of urgent inpatient AF ablation has increased over time. Compared with elective ablation, patients who underwent urgent AF ablation had more comorbid conditions, particularly heart failure, with a higher rate of risk-adjusted, procedure-related complications.
Study context
- Population
- Patients who underwent Atrial Fibrillation (AF) ablation, National Cardiovascular Data Registry AFib Ablation Registry, January 1, 2016, to June 30, 2023patients who underwent index AF ablation · urgent 2,714 · elective 137,337
- Participants
- 140,051 patients
- Exposure
- Urgent vs elective AF ablation
- Urgent AF ablationn = 2,714
- Elective AF ablationn = 137,337
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Comorbidities
diabetes
coronary artery disease
heart failure
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Factors associated with urgent AF ablation
- Black patients, OR (95% CI)
- 1.68 (1.41-2.0)
- Presenting to the procedure in AF, OR (95% CI)
- 1.73 (1.36-2.20)
- Higher hospital volume of AF ablations, OR [per 100 cases] (95% CI)
- 1.22 (1.20-1.25)
Use of urgent AF ablation over the study period
- Urgent AF ablation increased
- 0.5% to 2.0%; P < 0.0001
Safety
Adjusted procedure-related in-hospital complication rate · adjusted
- Adjusted procedure-related in-hospital complication rate: P < 0.0001
Original publication
Use and Safety of Urgent vs Elective Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in the United States. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. Published 6 February 2026. doi:10.1016/j.jacep.2025.12.030
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it