Luminal esophageal temperature rise and esophageal lesion formation following remote-controlled magnetic pulmonary vein isolation

Esophageal injury associated with catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: Determinants of risk and protective strategies

Catheter ablation has become an important element in the management of atrial fibrillation. Several technical advances allowed for better safety profiles and lower recurrence rates, leading to an increasing number of ablations worldwide. Despite that, major complications are still reported, and esophageal thermal injury remains a significant concern as atrioesophageal fistula (AEF) is often fatal. Recognition of the mechanisms involved in the process of esophageal lesion formation and the identification of the main determinants of risk have set the grounds for the development and improvement of different esophageal protective strategies. More sensitive esophageal temperature monitoring, safer ablation parameters and catheters, and different energy sources appear to collectively reduce the risk of esophageal thermal injury. Adjunctive measures such as the prophylactic use of proton-pump inhibitors, as well as esophageal cooling or deviation devices, have emerged as complementary methods with variable but promising results. Nevertheless, as a multifactorial problem, no single esophageal protective measure has proven to be sufficiently effective to eliminate the risk, and further investigation is still warranted. Early screening in the patients at risk and prompt intervention in the cases of AEF are important risk modifiers and yield better outcomes.

Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Using Magnetic Navigation Comparison With Conventional Approach During Long-Term Follow-Up

Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation targeting the circumferential isolation of pulmonary veins (PVI) is an established therapeutic alternative in symptomatic AF patients resistant to anti-arrhythmic medications. The procedure is technically challenging and multiple difficulties must be overcome in order to achieve a successful outcome. The magnetic navigation system (MNS) is a remote catheter control technology which has advantages such as a traumatic catheter design improving the procedural safety, a reduced amount of radiation exposure to both the patient and physician, unrestricted and reproducible catheter maneuverability that allows the access to difficult anatomical situations, and an improved catheter stability leading to better energy delivery. Due to these advantages, MNS is increasingly being used for AF ablation and both acute and chronic success rates are comparable with the conventional technique. The new developments in navigation systems, catheters and new three-dimensional mapping systems are very promising to obviate these concerns. However, MNS is related to longer radiofrequency (RF) application duration and procedure time.

Atrial fibrillation ablation using remote magnetic navigation and the risk of atrial-esophageal fistula: international multicenter experience

PURPOSE

Remote magnetic navigation (RMN) has been used in various electrophysiological procedures, including atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Atrial-esophageal fistula (AEF) is one of most disastrous complications of AF ablation. We aimed to evaluate the incidence of AEF during AF ablation using RMN in comparison to manual ablation.

METHODS

We conducted the first international survey among RMN operators for assessment of the prevalence of AEF and procedural parameters affecting the risk. Data from parallel survey of AEF among Canadian interventional electrophysiologists (CIE) using only manual catheters served as control.

RESULTS

Fifteen RMN operators (who performed 3637 procedures) and 25 manual CIE operators (7016 procedures) responded to the survey. RMN operators were more experienced than CIE operators (16.3 ± 8.3 vs. 9.2 ± 5.4 practice years in electrophysiology, p = 0.007). The maximal energy output in the posterior wall was higher in the operator using RMN (33 ± 5 vs. 28.6 ± 4.9 W; p = 0.02). Other parameters including use of preprocedural images, irrigated catheter, pump flow rate, esophageal temperature monitoring, intracardiac echocardiography (ICE), and general anesthesia were similar. CIE operators administered proton-pump inhibitors postoperatively significantly more than RMN operators (76 vs. 35%, p = 0.01). AEF was reported in 5 of the 7016 patients in the control group (0.07%) but in none of the RMN group (p = 0.11).

CONCLUSIONS

AEF is a rare complication and its evaluation necessitates large-scale studies. Although no AEF case with RMN was reported in this large study or previously on the literature, the rarity of this complication prevents firm conclusion about the risk.

Remote magnetic navigation in atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is of profound public health importance and is largely a disease of aging and is responsible for increased morbidity- and mortality-related healthcare expenditures. Catheter ablation to isolate the pulmonary veins has become the therapy of choice for treatment of drug-refractory AF. Procedures can be very challenging and multiple difficulties must be overcome in order to achieve a successful outcome. The magnetic navigation system (MNS) has advantages in catheter maneuverability, stability and reproducibility. Due to the catheter design safety and efficacy of AF, ablation has increased. New developments are being made to allow fully remote ablation procedures in combination with the MNS. However, new technologies are still necessary to improve MNS ablation for AF.