Cooling or Warming the Esophagus to Reduce Esophageal Injury During Left Atrial Ablation in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation

Active esophageal cooling during radiofrequency ablation of the left atrium: data review and update

INTRODUCTION

Radiofrequency (RF) ablation of the left atrium of the heart is increasingly used to treat atrial fibrillation (AF). Unfortunately, inadvertent thermal injury to the esophagus can occur during this procedure, potentially creating an atrioesophageal fistula (AEF) which is 80% fatal. The ensoETM (Attune Medical, Chicago, IL), is an esophageal cooling device that has been shown to reduce thermal injury to the esophagus during RF ablation.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes growing evidence related to active esophageal cooling during RF ablation for the treatment of AF. The review presents data demonstrating improved outcomes related to patient safety and procedural efficiency and suggests directions for future research.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of active esophageal cooling during RF ablation reduces esophageal injury, reduces or eliminates fluoroscopy requirements, reduces procedure duration and post-operative pain, and increases long-term freedom from arrhythmia. These effects in turn increase patient same-day discharge rates, decrease operator cognitive load, and reduce cost. These findings are likely to further accelerate the adoption of active esophageal cooling.

Impact of Active Esophageal Cooling on Fluoroscopy Usage During Left Atrial Ablation

Risks to collateral structures exist with radiofrequency (RF) ablation of the left atrium to obtain pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Passive luminal esophageal temperature (LET) monitoring is commonly utilized, but increasing data suggest limited benefits with LET monitoring. In contrast, active cooling of the esophagus has been shown to significantly reduce esophageal injury. Active cooling of the esophagus also avoids the need for stopping and repositioning an LET probe during use, which may reduce the need for fluoroscopy use. This study aimed to measure the impact on fluoroscopy use during RF ablation with esophageal cooling using a dedicated cooling device in a low-fluoroscopy practice. All patients who underwent PVI over a one-year timeframe by a single provider were analyzed. Patients undergoing PVI prior to the incorporation of an esophageal cooling protocol into standard ablation practice were treated with traditional LET monitoring. Patients treated after this point received active esophageal cooling, in which no LET monitoring is utilized. A total of 280 patients were treated; 91 patients were treated using LET monitoring, and 189 patients were treated with esophageal cooling. The mean total fluoroscopy time before the implementation of the esophageal cooling protocol in 91 patients was 194 seconds [standard deviation (SD): 182 seconds] per case, with a median of 144 seconds. The mean total fluoroscopy time after implementation in 189 patients was 126 seconds (SD: 120 seconds) per case with a median of 96 seconds, representing a reduction of 35% per case (p < 0.0001, Mann-Whitney U test). In this largest study to date of active esophageal cooling during PVI, a 35% reduction in fluoroscopy time compared with patients who received LET monitoring was found. This reduction was seen despite an already low fluoroscopy usage rate in place.

Randomized comparison of oesophageal protection with a temperature control device: results of the IMPACT study

Aims 

Thermal injury to the oesophagus is an important cause of life-threatening complication after ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). Thermal protection of the oesophageal lumen by infusing cold liquid reduces thermal injury to a limited extent. We tested the ability of a more powerful method of oesophageal temperature control to reduce the incidence of thermal injury.

Methods and results 

A single-centre, prospective, double-blinded randomized trial was used to investigate the ability of the ensoETM device to protect the oesophagus from thermal injury. This device was compared in a 1:1 randomization with a control group of standard practice utilizing a single-point temperature probe. In the protected group, the device maintained the luminal temperature at 4°C during radiofrequency (RF) ablation for AF under general anaesthesia. Endoscopic examination was performed at 7 days post-ablation and oesophageal injury was scored. The patient and the endoscopist were blinded to the randomization. We recruited 188 patients, of whom 120 underwent endoscopy. Thermal injury to the mucosa was significantly more common in the control group than in those receiving oesophageal protection (12/60 vs. 2/60; P = 0.008), with a trend toward reduction in gastroparesis (6/60 vs. 2/60, P = 0.27). There was no difference between groups in the duration of RF or in the force applied (P value range= 0.2–0.9). Procedure duration and fluoroscopy duration were similar (P = 0.97, P = 0.91, respectively).

Conclusion 

Thermal protection of the oesophagus significantly reduces ablation-related thermal injury compared with standard care. This method of oesophageal protection is safe and does not compromise the efficacy or efficiency of the ablation procedure.