Supplementary data: Difference in hospital readmission among patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing ablation using nonintegrated pulsed field catheter with CARTO™ 3 versus EnSite™ electroanatomical mapping system

These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article 'Difference in hospital readmission among patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing ablation using nonintegrated pulsed field catheter with CARTO™ 3 versus EnSite™ electroanatomical mapping system' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.Supplemental Table 1: ICD10 codes for cardiovascular conditions used in 30-day readmission analyses.Supplemental Table 2: 30-day complications in both cohorts (unweighted sample).Supplemental Table 3: 30-day complications in both cohorts (unweighted sample).Supplemental Table 4: Results of sensitivity analysis among patients with paroxysmal and perisitent AFAim: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a minimally thermal alternative to traditional thermal catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF), with comparable efficacy and minimal risk of collateral tissue injury. Three-dimensional (3D) electroanatomical mapping systems have been adopted with nonintegrated PFA catheters to improve precision and procedural efficiency. This study compared arrhythmia-related hospital readmissions and procedure-related complications among patients with AF treated with PFA, using either the CARTO™ 3 or EnSite™ electroanatomical mapping system. Materials & methods: Patients who underwent PFA for AF using nonintegrated pulsed field catheters with either CARTO 3 or EnSite were identified from the 2023–2024 Premier Healthcare Database (PHD). The primary outcome was 30-day inpatient readmission and emergency room (ER) visit for AF/atrial flutter (AFL)/atrial tachycardia following the index PFA procedure. Secondary outcomes included 30-day cardiovascular-related readmissions and procedure-related complications. Cohorts were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Descriptive analyses and a weighted Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model were used to assess differences in outcomes between groups. Results: A total of 2894 patients were treated using CARTO 3 and 2015 using EnSite. After weighting, patient and hospital characteristics were well balanced across cohorts. The CARTO 3 group was significantly less likely to experience AF/AFL/atrial tachycardia-related readmissions (0.3% vs 0.9%, chi-square p = 0.023; odds ratio [OR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17–0.90, GEE p = 0.028) and a composite outcome of AF/AFL/atrial tachycardiarelated inpatient readmission or ER visits (0.5% vs 1.1%, chi-square p = 0.020; OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.21–0.89, GEE p = 0.023) within 30 days of PFA procedure than the EnSite group. No differences were observed in cardiovascular-related readmission or complications. Conclusion: In this retrospective, real-world study, patients with AF who underwent PFA using CARTO 3 had lower 30-day AF/AFL/atrial tachycardia-related readmissions rates than those treated with EnSite suggesting that choice of mapping system may influence early AF outcomes and could translate into reduced downstream hospitalizations and resource use.