Comparing rates of atrioesophageal fistula with contact force-sensing and non-contact force-sensing catheters: analysis of post-market safety surveillance data

Pulsed field ablation versus thermal energy ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of procedural efficiency, safety, and efficacy

BACKGROUND

Pulsed field ablation (PFA) induces cell death through electroporation using ultrarapid electrical pulses. We sought to compare the procedural efficiency characteristics, safety, and efficacy of ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) using PFA compared with thermal energy ablation.

METHODS

We performed an extensive literature search and systematic review of studies that compared ablation of AF with PFA versus thermal energy sources. Risk ratio (RR) 95% confidence intervals (CI) were measured for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) 95% CI were measured for continuous variables, where RR < 1 and MD < 0 favor the PFA group.

RESULTS

We included 6 comparative studies for a total of 1012 patients who underwent ablation of AF: 43.6% with PFA (n = 441) and 56.4% (n = 571) with thermal energy sources. There were significantly shorter procedures times with PFA despite a protocolized 20-min dwell time (MD - 21.95, 95% CI - 33.77, - 10.14, p = 0.0003), but with significantly longer fluroscopy time (MD 5.71, 95% CI 1.13, 10.30, p = 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences in periprocedural complications (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.59-2.44) or recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.31, 1.34) between the PFA and thermal ablation cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this meta-analysis, PFA was associated with shorter procedural times and longer fluoroscopy times, but no difference in periprocedural complications or rates of recurrent AF when compared to ablation with thermal energy sources. However, larger randomized control trials are needed.

Atrial Fibrillation (Part 2) - Catheter Ablation

More than 20 years since its initial use, catheter ablation has become a routinely performed procedure for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Initially based on the electrical isolation of pulmonary veins in patients with paroxysmal AF, subsequent advances in the understanding of pathophysiology led to additional techniques not only to achieve better results, but also to treat patients with persistent forms of arrhythmia, as well as patients with structural heart disease and heart failure.

Catheter-related complications and mortality of atrial fibrillation ablation following introduction of contact force-sensing technology

OBJECTIVES

Contact force-sensing catheters allow real-time catheter-tissue contact force monitoring during atrial fibrillation. These catheters were rapidly adopted into clinical practice following market introduction in 2014, but concerns have been raised regarding collateral damage such as esophageal injury. We sought to examine whether the introduction of force-sensing catheters was associated with a change in short-term and intermediate-term acute care use, complications and mortality following atrial fibrillation ablation.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort analysis. We used inverse probability treatment weight matching to account for the differences in baseline characteristics between groups.

SETTING

We examined patients included in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse who underwent ablation for atrial fibrillation before (2011-2013) and after (2015-2017) the market introduction of contact force-sensing catheters.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We examined 30-day and 90-day rates of all-cause acute care use, including hospitalizations and emergency department visits, as well as death and hospitalization for catheter-related complications, including atrioesophageal fistula, pericarditis, cardiac tamponade/perforation and stroke/transient ischemic attack.

RESULTS

Our sample included 3470 and 5772 patients who underwent atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation before and after market introduction of contact force-sensing catheters, respectively. Complication rates were low and did not differ between the two periods (p>0.10 for each outcome). The 30-day and 90-day mortality was 0.1% and 0.3%, respectively after market introduction and unchanged from prior to 2014. The 90-day rates of all-cause acute care use decreased, from 27.0% in 2011-2013 to 23.9% in 2015-2017 (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

AF ablation-related catheter complications and mortality are low and there has been no significant change following the introduction of force-sensing catheters.

Risk of atrioesophageal fistula with cryoballoon ablation of atrial fibrillation

Background

Although there are considerable data on the safety of cryoablation, data on the rare but severe complication of atrioesophageal fistula (AEF) following cryoballoon ablation are limited.

Objective

To report the global, user-reported incidence of AEF associated with cryoballoon ablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation using Medtronic's complaint database.

Methods

User-reported cryoballoon ablation complications occurring between July 1, 2009, and March 31, 2019, were reviewed to identify cases of AEF. A global event rate of AEF was calculated by dividing the event count by total catheter utilization over the same period. Data on symptoms and patient sequalae were reported as available.

Results

More than 500,000 Arctic Front cryoballoon catheters (Arctic Front, Arctic Front Advance, Arctic Front Advance ST, and Arctic Front Advance Pro; Medtronic, Inc) were distributed globally during the 9.75-year study period. During this time, 18 confirmed AEF, 1 suspected AEF, and 1 pericardial esophageal fistula were identified; therefore, global incidence of AEF associated with the Arctic Front family of ablation catheters was 0.00396%. Patients most commonly presented with fever (88.2%), and initial symptoms were reported a median of 21 (interquartile range: 4-30) days after the ablation. Although rare, the development of an AEF resulted in death in 68.8% (11/16) of patients with known outcomes.

Conclusions

AEF is a possible but rare complication of cryoballoon ablation with a reported frequency of 1 in every 25,000 patients treated. Awareness of the prevalence and manifestation of AEF associated with cryoballoon ablation is critical for early identification and treatment of this complication.