Comparative study of strategies to prevent esophageal and periesophageal injury during atrial fibrillation ablation. (18th March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: de Oliveira, Barbara D.; Oyama, Helena; Hardy, Carina A.; de Melo, Sissy L.; Pisani, Cristiano F.; Chokr, Muhieddine O.; Balbo, Conrado; da Costa Darrieux, Francisco C.; Hachul, Denise T.; Chaves, Dalton M.; Artifon, E. L. A.; Cestari, Idágene A.; Sakai, Paulo; Scanavacca, Mauricio I.
• Is Part Of: Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology. Volume 31:Number 4(2020)
• Page Start: 924
• Page End: 933
• Publication Date: 2020-03-18
• Subjects: atrial fibrillation -- catheter ablation -- complications -- esophageal cooling -- esophageal temperature monitoring -- esophageal/periesophageal lesion; Blood vessels -- Physiology -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Physiology -- Periodicals; 612.1
• DOI: 10.1111/jce.14417
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1045-3873

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To compare the prevalence of esophageal and periesophageal thermal injury in patients undergoing radiofrequency (RF) atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation using 8 mm tip catheters during three different esophageal protection strategies. Methods: Forty‐five consecutive patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF underwent first ablation procedure, besides esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) combined with radial endosonography (EUS) performed before and after the pulmonary vein (PV) isolation. Before the procedure, patients were randomly assigned to one of three esophageal lesion protection strategies: group I—without any protective or monitoring dispositive and limiting RF applications to 30 W for 20 seconds, in left atrium posterior wall (LAPW); group II—power and time of RF delivery, up to 50 W for 20 seconds at LAPW, limited by esophageal temperature monitoring; group III—applications of RF in LAPW with fixed power application of 50 W for 20 seconds during continuous esophageal cooling. Results: Baseline characteristics of patients were similar in all groups. The four PVs were isolated in 14 (93.3%), 13 (86.7%), and 15 (100%) patients, respectively in groups I, II, and III. The mean RF power was significantly higher ( P < .001) in the posterior side of PVs in group III. Post‐AF ablation EGD and EUS revealed two esophageal wall ulcerations and two periesophageal mediastinal edemas only in the esophageal cooling group ( P = .008). Conclusion: Esophageal cooling balloon strategy resulted in a higher RF power energy delivery when ablating at the LA posterior wall, using 8 mm nonirrigated tip catheters under temperature mode control. Despite that, patients presented a relatively low incidence of esophageal and periesophaeal injuries.