Originally Posted by Kerlenbach
I think comparative reports regarding medical facilities are misleading. The sicker patients go to the better hospitals, generally, and will have poorer results overall despite receiving superior care. The factor that I think is the most important is the number of procedures. A place that does a lot of procedures generally will be better at it. The fact that a particular hospital has poorer results does not necessarily mean it is a poorer hospital.
Ablation procedures are very much an art and not a science. It is not a standard procedure, and it is a developing field. There are, and have been, great variations, mostly dependent upon the practitioner as opposed to the particular facility, and the particular procedure the practitioner uses - there are at least ten major variations.
As the best practitioners tend to concentrate in certain hospitals, these hospitals tend to have better results.
Also, some hospitals do not have some of the very latest imaging devices, etc. Again, a very developing field.
Just a few years back success rate was about 50% lower on the average. It sill is below about 75%, again on the average. Certain physicians have much higher averages, however.