Abstract:Background: Atrial fibrillation is the most common tachyarrhythmia, while catheter ablation is an effective therapy for atrial fibrillation. However, pain and nervousness may occur during the procedure. Moreover, a consensus has still not been reached on which is the best kind of analgesic and sedative to use in these procedures. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of analgesics and sedatives used in catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Baidu Wenku document download website for randomized controlled trials from their inception to February 26, 2023. Only studies that made comparisons among analgesics or sedatives and involved patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation were included. The efficacy endpoints were Ramsay sedation scores and visual analog scale scores during the radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. The safety endpoints were the incidence of respiratory depression, hypotension, nausea, and vomiting. Pairwise comparisons and frequency method analyses were conducted. Results were reported as odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the risk bias of the studies in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Results: Out of the 709 articles initially retrieved, 14 studies, with a total of 1156 participants, were included. In terms of efficacy, patients receiving dexmedetomidine during radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation had higher Ramsay sedation scores than those receiving midazolam plus fentanyl, or its derivatives (MD -0.88, 95% CI [-0.04 to -0.72]). Compared with morphine, dezocine (MD 1.88, 95% CI [1.16 to 2.60]), hydromorphone (MD 4.07, 95% CI [3.56 to 4.58]), butorphanol (MD 3.18, 95% CI [2.38 to 3.96]), and fentanyl or its derivatives (MD 1.57, 95% CI [1.25 to 1.89]) had a better analgesic effect. In terms of safety, propofol (OR 16.46; 95% CI [1.54 to 175.95]) and midazolam plus fentanyl or its derivatives (OR 7.02; 95% CI [1.33 to 36.99]) significantly increased the incidence of respiratory depression compared with dexmedetomidine plus fentanyl or its derivatives. Dexmedetomidine plus fentanyl or its derivatives reduced the incidence of nausea and vomiting compared with fentanyl alone (OR 4.74; 95% CI [1.01 to 22.22]). Propofol was associated with a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting than hydromorphone (OR 0.01; 95% CI [0.00 to 0.59]) and fentanyl or its derivatives (OR 0.01; 95% CI [0.00 to 0.51]). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of hypotension between any two strategies. Conclusions: Hydromorphone and butorphanol had better analgesic effects than fentanyl or its derivates. Dexmedetomidine had better sedative effects. In terms of safety, dexmedetomidine, oxymorphone, and butorphanol were superior. It is necessary to explore the regimen that can consider both the effectiveness and safety during radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). The prospero registration: This study was registered with PROSPERO, number: CRD42023403661.

P2838The impact of anesthesia depth on catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Anaesthesia use in catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Comparison of the Different Anesthesia Strategies for Atrial Fibrillation Catheter Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A Meta-Analysis Comparing General Anesthesia, Deep Sedation, and Conscious Sedation for Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation

Anesthetic Techniques for Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation: A Comparative Review

Efficacy and Safety of Analgesics and Sedatives during Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: A Network Meta-Analysis

General anaesthesia compared to conscious sedation for first-time atrial fibrillation catheter ablation-a Danish nationwide cohort study

A comparison of clinical outcomes and cost of radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with monitored anesthesia care versus general anesthesia

Surgical versus catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Efficacy and Safety of High-power Short-duration Radio Frequency Ablation in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-analysis of Prospective Study

Deep sedation protocol during atrial fibrillation ablation using a novel variable-loop biphasic pulsed field ablation catheter

Comparative Analysis of Clinical Outcomes of High-power, Short-duration Ablation versus Low-power, Long-duration Ablation Strategy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Comprehensive Umbrella Review of Meta-analyses

Safety of different therapies for atrial fibrillation: a network meta-analysis

Surgical ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation in cardiac surgery: a cumulative meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Hybrid ablation procedure for the treatment of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Meta-analysis of high-power short-duration versus cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation and impact on clinical outcomes

The safety and efficacy of hybrid ablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis

Surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation during mitral valve surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Efficacy and safety of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The effect of different power radiofrequency ablations in treatment and postoperative pain in patients with atrial fibrillation: a retrospective study