Prevention of Atrioesophageal Fistula After Catheter Ablation

Role of oesophageal cooling in the prevention of oesophageal injury in atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy of oesophageal cooling in the prevention of oesophageal injury in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases through April 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the role of oesophageal cooling compared with control in the prevention of oesophageal injury during AF catheter ablation. The study primary outcome was the incidence of any oesophageal injury. The meta-analysis included 4 RCTs with a total of 294 patients. There was no difference in the incidence of any oesophageal injury between oesophageal cooling and control [15% vs. 19%; relative risk (RR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-2.41]. Compared with control, oesophageal cooling showed lower risk of severe oesophageal injury (1.5% vs. 9%; RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.05-0.80). There were no significant differences among the two groups in mild to moderate oesophageal injury (13.6% vs. 12.1%; RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.28-4.23), procedure duration [standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.03; 95% CI -0.36-0.30], posterior wall radiofrequency (RF) time (SMD 0.27; 95% CI -0.04-0.58), total RF time (SMD -0.50; 95% CI -1.15-0.16), acute reconnection incidence (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.02-36.34), and ablation index (SMD 0.16; 95% CI -0.33-0.66).

CONCLUSION

Among patients undergoing AF catheter ablation, oesophageal cooling did not reduce the overall risk of any oesophageal injury compared with control. Oesophageal cooling might shift the severity of oesophageal injuries to less severe injuries. Further studies should evaluate the long-term effects after oesophageal cooling during AF catheter ablation.

Esophageal temperature management during cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

Esophageal thermal injury (ETI) is a well-recognized complication of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Previous studies have demonstrated that direct esophageal cooling reduces ETI during radiofrequency AF ablation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of an esophageal warming device to prevent ETI during cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for AF.

METHODS

This prospective, double-blinded study enrolled 42 patients with symptomatic AF undergoing CBA. Patients were randomized to the treatment group with esophageal warming (42°C) using recirculated water through a multilumen, silicone tube inserted into the esophagus (EnsoETM®; Attune Medical) (WRM) or the control group with a luminal single-electrode esophageal temperature monitoring probe (LET). Patients underwent upper endoscopy esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) the following day. ETI was classified into four grades.

RESULTS

Baseline patient characteristics were similar between groups. Procedural characteristics including number of freezes, total freeze time, early freeze terminations, coldest balloon temperature, procedure duration, posterior wall ablation, and proton pump inhibitor and transesophageal echocardiogram use before procedure were not different between groups. The EGD was completed in 40/42 patients. There was significantly more ETI in the WRM group compared to the LET group (n = 8 [38%] vs. n = 1 [5%], p = 0.02). All ETI lesions were grade 1 (erythema) or 2 (superficial ulceration). Total freeze time in the left inferior pulmonary vein was predictive of ETI (360 vs. 300 s, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Use of a luminal heat exchange tube for esophageal warming during CBA for AF was paradoxically associated with a higher risk of ETI.

Impact of proton pump inhibitors on mortality and severe esophageal injury after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: a nationwide retrospective study using propensity score matching

Studies on the protective effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on mortality and severe esophageal injury after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation are lacking. However, some reports have recommended use of PPIs for prophylaxis against esophageal injury. We investigated the effects of PPIs on mortality and severe esophageal injury after ablation. We retrospectively extracted data for adult in-patients who received catheter ablation with a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation from July 2010 to March 2018. The patients were divided into two groups: with PPI (PPI group) and without PPI (non-PPI group) administration before or on the day of ablation. The primary composite outcome was all-cause 30-day mortality and incidence of severe esophageal injury with complication (cardiac tamponade, ischemic stroke, or sepsis) within 30 days of ablation. Secondary outcomes included incidence of cardiac tamponade, ischemic stroke, and sepsis within 30 days of ablation. Propensity score matching was performed to compare the primary and secondary outcomes between the two groups. We identified 141,649 eligible patients, comprising 62,558 in the PPI group and 79,091 in the non-PPI group. Propensity score-matching analysis showed that PPI use was not associated with reduced proportion of the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio 1.02; 95% confidence interval 0.71-1.47). PPI use may not be beneficial for reducing mortality or severe complications.