Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 7, 2026

Remote Magnetic Navigation for Accurate, Real-time Catheter Positioning and Ablation in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures
Published on: April 21, 2013
Safety and feasibility of cardiac electrophysiology procedures in ambulatory surgery centers
Arash Aryana1, Sudarone Thihalolipavan2, Mark E Willcox3
1Mercy Medical Group of Sacramento, Sacramento, California; Mercy General Hospital, Sacramento, California; Division of Cardiology, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska.
Insights
Ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) are safe for cardiac electrophysiology procedures like catheter ablation (CA), with outcomes comparable to hospital settings. This multicenter study supports ASCs for delivering advanced cardiac care.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Electrophysiology
- Medical Devices
Background:
- Cardiac electrophysiology procedures, including catheter ablation (CA), are typically performed in hospital outpatient departments.
- Despite improved safety profiles, traditional settings may not be optimal for all procedures.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the safety and outcomes of various cardiac electrophysiology procedures conducted in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs).
- To evaluate these procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic under the CMS Hospitals Without Walls program.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of over 4000 procedures in 6 ASCs with same-day discharge.
- Included transesophageal echocardiography, cardioversion, cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation, electrophysiology studies, and CA for various arrhythmias.
- Procedures encompassed atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter (AFL), supraventricular tachycardia, ventricular premature complexes (VPCs), and atrioventricular node ablation.
Main Results:
- Low adverse event rates were observed, comparable between CIED implantation (0.76%) and CA (0.73%).
- Urgent postprocedure hospitalization rates were also similar for CIED (0.48%) and CA (0.45%).
- Adverse event rates in ASCs did not significantly differ from hospital outpatient departments for both CIED and CA procedures.
Conclusions:
- ASCs provide a safe and effective environment for a range of cardiac electrophysiology procedures, including catheter ablation.
- These findings have significant implications for healthcare delivery models and policy, potentially expanding access to advanced cardiac care.
Background:
Despite their improved safety, by and large, cardiac electrophysiology procedures including catheter ablation (CA), are presently performed in hospital outpatient departments.
Objective:
This large multicenter study investigated the safety and outcomes associated with various cardiac electrophysiology procedures performed at 6 ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), primarily during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic under the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospitals Without Walls program.
Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes from consecutive electrophysiology procedures performed in ASCs with same-day discharge, including transesophageal echocardiography, cardioversion, cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation, electrophysiology studies, and CA for atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter (AFL)/supraventricular tachycardia, ventricular premature complexes (VPCs), and atrioventricular node.
Results:
Altogether, 4037 procedures were performed, including 779 transesophageal echocardiography/cardioversion procedures (19.3%), 1453 CIED implantation procedures (36.0%), 26 electrophysiology studies (0.6%), and 1779 CA procedures (44.1%) for AF (75.4%), AFL/supraventricular tachycardia (18.8%), VPC (4.7%), and atrioventricular node (1.1%). Overall, 80.2% of CA procedures were for left-sided atrial arrhythmias (AF/atypical AFL) requiring transseptal catheterization. Left-sided VPC ablation procedures (42.2%) were performed using a transseptal/retrograde approach. Adverse event rates were low, but comparable between CIED implantation and CA (0.76% vs 0.73%; P = .93), as were the incidences of urgent/unplanned postprocedure hospitalization (0.48% vs 0.45%; P = .89), respectively. Moreover, the adverse event rates in ASCs vs hospital outpatient departments did not differ for CIED (0.76% vs 0.65%; P = .71) or CA (0.73% vs 0.80%; P = .79).
Conclusion:
The results from this large multicenter study suggest that ASCs represent a safe and effective setting to perform a variety of cardiac electrophysiology procedures including CA. These findings bear important implications for healthcare delivery and policy.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Cardiac Catheterization I: Pre-Procedure Overview
Cardiac Catheterization II: Right Heart Catheterization
Cardiac Catheterization III: Left Heart Catheterization
Cardiac Catheterization IV: Nursing Management

