Differences in Transient Thermal Response of Commercial Esophageal Temperature Probes

Clinical utility of oesophageal temperature monitoring in AF ablation: An updated meta-analysis and review of literature

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation can lead to oesophageal thermal injuries (ETI). These are thought to be the precursor of the much rarer but frequently fatal atrio-oesophageal fistulas. Many centers performing AF ablation routinely use oesophageal temperature monitoring (ETM). This meta-analysis aims to determine the utility of ETM in preventing ETI in the context of radiofrequency catheter ablation of AF.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase databases and Cochrane registry was performed comparing ETI between ETM and non-ETM strategies in AF ablation. Data on endoscopically determined ETI, AF recurrence, procedure time and ablation time were extracted. Statistical analyses including subgroup and covariate analyses were performed using random effect model in R platform.

RESULTS

ETI were similar in both ETM (n = 864) and non- ETM groups (n = 639) (RR 1.04, 95 % CI 0.34-3.23) across 12 studies. AF recurrence was statistically similar in both groups (IRR 0.92, 95 % CI 0.73-1.17) but showed a lower trend in non-ETM group. Ablation time was numerically lower in the ETM group and procedure time was numerically higher trend in the ETM group; but they were not statistically significant. Covariate analysis found that posterior wall ablation power setting, additional linear ablation, BMI, use of GA or prophylactic PPI after ablation had no significant correlation in the incidence of ETI.

CONCLUSION

ETM was not associated with a reduced incidence of ETI during AF ablation. Evidence supporting the routine use of ETM to reduce the risk of ETI or atrio-oesophageal fistulas is lacking.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific HRS, and the Latin American HRS.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society .

Esophageal injury, perforation, and fistula formation following atrial fibrillation ablation

BACKGROUND

Esophageal perforation and fistula formation are rare but serious complications following atrial fibrillation ablation. In this review article, we outline the incidence, pathophysiology, predictors, and preventative strategies of this dreaded complication.

METHODS

We conducted an electronic search in 10 databases/electronic search engines to access relevant publications. All articles reporting complications following atrial fibrillation ablation, including esophageal injury and fistula formation, were included for systematic review.

RESULTS

A total of 130 manuscripts were identified for the final review process. The overall incidence of esophageal injury following atrial fibrillation ablation was significantly higher with thermal ablation modalities (radiofrequency 5-40%, cryoballoon 3-25%, high-intensity focused ultrasound < 10%) as opposed to non-thermal ablation modalities (no cases reported to date). The incidence of esophageal perforation and fistula formation with the use of thermal ablation modalities is estimated to occur in less than 0.25% of all atrial fibrillation ablation procedures. The use of luminal esophageal temperature monitoring probe and mechanical esophageal deviation showed protective effect toward reducing the incidence of this complication. The prognosis is very poor for patients who develop atrioesophageal fistula, and the condition is rapidly fatal without surgical intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Esophageal perforation and fistula formation following atrial fibrillation ablation are rare complications with poor prognosis. Various strategies have been proposed to protect the esophagus and reduce the incidence of this fearful complication. Pulsed field ablation is a promising new ablation technology that may be the future answer toward reducing the incidence of esophageal complications.

Relationship between the posterior atrial wall and the esophagus: esophageal position and temperature measurement during atrial fibrillation ablation (AWESOME-AF). A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) implies unavoidable ablation lesions to the left atrial posterior wall, which is closely related to the esophagus, leading to several potential complications. This study evaluates the usefulness of the esophageal fingerprint in avoiding temperature rises during paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) ablation.

METHODS

Isodistance maps of the atrio-esophageal relationship (esophageal fingerprint) were derived from the preprocedural computerized tomography. Patients were randomized (1:1) into two groups: (1) PRINT group, the PVI line was modified according to the esophageal fingerprint; (2) CONTROL group, standard PVI with operator blinded to the fingerprint. The primary endpoint was temperature rise detected by intraluminal esophageal temperature probe monitoring. Ablation settings were as specified on the Ablate BY-LAW study protocol.

RESULTS

Sixty consecutive patients referred for paroxysmal AF ablation were randomized (42 (70%) men, mean age 60 ± 11 years). Temperature rise (> 39.1 °C) occurred in 5 (16%) patients in the PRINT group vs. 17 (56%) in the CONTROL group (p < 0.01). Three AF recurrences were documented at a mean follow-up of 12 ± 3 months (one (3%) in the PRINT group and 2 (6.6%) in the CONTROL group, p = 0.4).

CONCLUSION

The esophageal fingerprint allows for a reliable identification of the esophageal position and its use for PVI line deployment results in less frequent esophageal temperature rises when compared to the standard approach. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of PVI line modification to avoid esophageal heating on long-term outcomes. The development of new imaging-derived tools could ultimately improve patient safety (NCT04394923).

Radiofrequency Pulmonary Vein Isolation without Esophageal Temperature Monitoring: Contact-Force Characteristics and Incidence of Esophageal Thermal Damage

Esophageal thermal lesions following pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for atrial fibrillation (AF) potentially harbor lethal complications. Radiofrequency (RF)-PVI using contact force-technology can reduce collateral damage. We evaluated the incidence of endoscopically detected esophageal lesions (EDEL) and the contribution of contact force to esophageal lesion formation without esophageal temperature monitoring. One hundred and thirty-one AF patients underwent contact force-guided RF-PVI. Contact force, energy, force-time-integral, and force-power-time-integral were adopted. During PVI at the posterior segment of the wide antral circumferential line, limits were set for energy (30 W), duration (30 s) and contact force (40 g). Ablations were analyzed postero-superior and -inferior around PVs. Endoscopy within 120 h identified EDEL in six patients (4.6%). In EDEL(+), obesity was less frequent (17% vs. 68%, p = 0.018), creatinine was higher (1.55 ± 1.18 vs. 1.07 ± 0.42 mg/dL, p = 0.016), and exclusively at the left postero-inferior site, force-time-integral and force-power-time-integral were greater (2973 ± 3267 vs. 1757 ± 1262 g·s, p = 0.042 and 83,547 ± 105,940 vs. 43,556 ± 35,255 g·J, p = 0.022, respectively) as compared to EDEL(-) patients. No major complications occurred. At 12 months, arrhythmia-free survival was 74%. The incidence of EDEL was low after contact force-guided RF-PVI. Implementing combined contact force-indices on the postero-inferior site of left-sided PVs may reduce EDEL.

Protecting Against Collateral Damage to Non-cardiac Structures During Endocardial Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

Injury to structures adjacent to the heart, particularly oesophageal injury, accounts for a large proportion of fatal and life-altering complications of ablation for persistent AF. Avoiding these complications dictates many aspects of the way ablation is performed. Because avoidance involves limiting energy delivery in areas of interest, fear of extracardiac injury can impede the ability of the operator to perform an effective procedure. New techniques are becoming available that may permit the operator to circumvent this dilemma and deliver effective ablation with less risk to adjacent structures. The authors review all methods available to avoid injury to extracardiac structures to put these developments in context.

Calculated parameters of luminal esophageal temperatures predict esophageal injury following conventional and high-power short-duration radiofrequency pulmonary vein isolation

BACKGROUND

Luminal esophageal temperature (LET) monitoring is not associated with reduced esophageal injury following pulmonary vein isolation (PVI).

OBJECTIVE

Detailed analysis of (the temporal and spatial gradients of) LET measurements may better predict the risk for esophageal injury.

METHODS

Between January 2020 and December 2021, LET maxima, duration of LET rise above baseline, and area under the LET curve (AUC) were calculated offline and correlated with (endoscopy and endoscopic ultrasound detected) esophageal injury (i.e., mucosal esophageal lesions [ELs], periesophageal edema, and gastric motility disorders) following PVI using moderate-power moderate-duration (MPMD [25-30 W/25-30s]) and high-power short-duration (HPSD [50 W/13s]) radiofrequency (RF) settings.

RESULTS

63 patients (69 ± 9 years old, 32 male, 51 MPMD and 12 HPSD) were studied. The esophageal injury was frequent (40% in both groups), mucosal ELs were more common with MPMD, and edema was frequently observed following HPSD. RF-duration, total RF-energy at the left atrial (LA) posterior wall, and distance between LA and esophagus were not different between patients with/without esophageal injury. In contrast, to LET and LET duration above baseline, AUC was the best predictor and significantly increased in patients with esophageal injury (3422 vs. 2444 K^. s).

CONCLUSION

For both ablation strategies, AUC of the LET curves best predicted esophageal injury. HPSD is associated with similar rates of esophageal injury when (mostly subclinical) periesophageal alterations (that are of unclear clinical relevance) are included. Whether integration of these calculated LET parameters is useful to prevent esophageal injury remains to be seen.

Preventing esophageal complications from atrial fibrillation ablation: A review

Atrioesophageal fistula is a life-threatening complication of ablation treatment for atrial fibrillation. Methods to reduce the risk of esophageal injury have evolved over the last decade, and diagnosis of this complication remains difficult and therefore challenging to treat in a timely manner. Delayed diagnosis leads to treatment occurring in the context of a critically ill patient, contributing to the poor prognosis associated with this complication. The associated mortality risk can be as high as 70%. Recent important advances in preventative techniques are explored in this review.

Preventative techniques used in current clinical practice are discussed, which include high-power short-duration ablation, esophageal temperature probe monitoring, cryotherapy and laser balloon technologies, and use of proton pump inhibitors. A lack of randomized clinical evidence for the effectiveness of these practical methods are found. Alternative methods of esophageal protection has emerged in recent years, including mechanical deviation of the esophagus and esophageal temperature control (esophageal cooling). Although these are fairly recent methods, we discuss the available evidence to date. Mechanical deviation of the esophagus is due to undergo its first randomized study. Recent randomized study on esophageal cooling has shown promise of its effectiveness in preventing thermal injuries. Lastly, novel ablation technology that may be the future of esophageal protection, pulsed field ablation, is discussed.

The findings of this review suggest that more robust clinical evidence for esophageal protection methods is warranted to improve the safety of atrial fibrillation ablation.

Esophageal temperature during atrial fibrillation ablation poorly predicts esophageal injury: An observational study

Background

Esophageal injury (EI) remains a concern when performing pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using the high-power short-duration (HPSD) technique.

Objective

We aim to indicate that high esophageal temperature during HPSD PVI does not correlate with positive esophageal endoscopy (EGD) findings.

Methods

A retrospective observational study was performed on 43 patients undergoing PVI using HPSD (50 W for 6–7 seconds per lesion) at Tulane Medical Center from July 2020 to January 2021. Esophageal temperature was monitored throughout the procedure using a temperature probe and patients underwent EGD the following day. Small ulcers, nonbleeding erosions, erythema, and/or esophagitis were considered positive EGD findings.

Results

Mean age was 64.9 years; 46.5% of the patients were female. Eleven patients had positive EGD findings (group 1) and 32 patients had normal EGD (group 2). There was no statistical difference in mean esophageal peak temperature between group 1 and group 2 (43.9°C ± 2.9°C and 42.5°C ± 2.3°C, respectively, P = .17). There was no association between positive EGD results and esophageal temperature during PVI. Mean baseline esophageal temperature was similar in both groups (36.1°C, P = .78). Average contact force (P = .53), ablation time (P = .67), age (P = .3096), sex (P = .4), body mass index (P = .14), and other comorbidities did not correlate with positive endoscopy results. We found positive correlation between the distance of the left atrium (LA) to esophagus and positive EGD (P = .0001).

Conclusion

EI during HPSD PVI does not correlate to esophageal temperature changes during ablation. However, esophageal injury does correlate to a shorter proximity of the esophagus to the LA.

High-power, short-duration ablation for atrial fibrillation: Pros and cons

This article reviews and compares the rationale and evidence supporting high-power, short-duration radiofrequency (RF) ablation with those of conventional-power, conventional-duration RF ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). The pros and cons of each approach, biophysics of ablation, pre-clinical studies informing clinical utilization, and the accumulated clinical evidence are presented. Both conventional-power, conventional-duration RF ablation and high-power, short-duration ablation are similarly safe, and effective approaches for AF ablation. Theoretical advantages of high-power, short-duration ablation, including greater procedure efficiency and limited conductive heating of collateral structures, must be weighed against the narrower safety margin related to rapid energy delivery during high power ablation.

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.

An initial ex vivo evaluation of temperature profile and thermal injury formation on the epiesophageal surface during radiofrequency ablation

INTRODUCTION

Few studies have examined heat transfer and thermal injury on the epiesophageal surface during radiofrequency application, or compared the risk of esophageal thermal injury between standard and high-power, short-duration (HPSD) ablation. We studied the thermodynamics of HPSD and standard ablation at different tissue interfaces between the left atrium and esophagus, focusing on epiesophageal temperature changes and thermal injury.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Fresh porcine heart and esophageal sections were secured to a custom holder and submerged in a temperature-controlled, circulating water bath. During ablation, thermistors recorded temperatures at the catheter tip-atrial interface, epiesophageal-atrial interface, and esophageal lumen. Samples were ablated in triplicate with the following parameters: contact force (15/25g), power (10/20/30 W standard; 40/45/50 W HPSD), and duration (10/20/30 s standard; 5/10/15 s HPSD). Epiesophageal and endoluminal temperature rises were greater in HPSD than in standard ablation (epiesophageal: 5.9 ± 5.6 vs. 2.2 ± 2.0°C, p < .01; endoluminal: 0.7 ± 0.5 vs. 0.4 ± 0.2°C, p < .01). Six of 30 HPSD ablations and 1 of 26 standard ablations caused esophageal injury. The delay between the peak epiesophageal and endoluminal temperatures was greater in HPSD than in standard ablation (24.2 ± 22.1 vs. 13.0 ± 11.0 s, p = .023). Likewise, the peak epiesophageal surface temperature differed more from the concurrent endoluminal temperature in HPSD ablation (5.1 ± 5.3 vs. 1.7 ± 2.0°C, p < .01).

CONCLUSION

Endoluminal temperature underestimates epiesophageal surface temperature substantially during HPSD ablation. Visible epiesophageal injury was associated with a 2.2 ± 2.1°C rise in endoluminal temperature, corresponding to a 10.2 ± 6.5°C rise in epiesophageal temperature.

Esophageal cooling for protection: an innovative tool that improves the safety of atrial fibrillation ablation

This letter to the editor concerns the article: 'Innovative tools for atrial fibrillation ablation' by Rottner et al., published in the journal on 13th of May 2020. We read the article with great interest and congratulate the authors on an impressively detailed summary of the current tools and technological advances in atrial fibrillation ablation. Improving the safety of this procedure is very important due to widespread clinical practice and the increasing demand for this procedure. We would like to share further discussion with the authors and the journal's readership on current advances in improving the safety of this procedure - esophageal cooling. The results of a large randomized trial was recently presented, the IMPACT study (NCT03819946), which showed that a simple, standardized method of esophageal cooling with the ensoETM® device can significantly reduce esophageal thermal injury by 83.4%. Esophageal protection is important as esophageal injury has a high mortality rate to those that sustain this injury although the overall incidence is low. Rottner et al. discuss a much smaller study on esophageal cooling and the limitations of this study are also discussed.

Current Status of Esophageal Protection

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation necessitates ablation on the posterior left atrium. The anterior esophagus touches the posterior left atrium, although its course is highly variable. The proximity of the left atrium to the esophagus confers risk of injury with radiofrequency and cryoablation owing to the heat transfer that occurs with thermal ablation. Early detection of esophageal temperature changes with probes may decrease the extent of damage to the esophagus, but evidence is mixed. Avoiding ablation on the esophagus with esophageal deviation and modifying ablation approaches may decrease the risk of injury.

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.