Background Proactive esophageal cooling is increasingly being utilized, and is now FDA cleared, to reduce the likelihood of ablation-related esophageal injury resulting from radiofrequency (RF) cardiac ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). One-year follow-up from the largest randomized controlled study, the IMPACT trial, showed a trend towards improvement in long-term efficacy versus luminal esophageal temperature (LET) monitoring. With larger data sets now available for analysis, we sought to determine 1-year freedom from atrial arrhythmia associated with the use of proactive esophageal cooling. Methods Data from 2 trials comparing freedom from atrial arrhythmia after RF ablation using proactive esophageal cooling to LET monitoring were combined. Data were analyzed using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model to compare arrhythmia recurrence rates, with R statistical analysis software. Results Data from 631 patients across two studies comparing arrhythmia outcomes for proactive oesophageal cooling versus LET monitoring were analysed. Mean patient age was 66.4±9.8 years, and 37.4% were female. Arrhythmias were 56.3% paroxysmal AF and 43.7% persistent or long-standing persistent AF. Freedom from atrial arrhythmia at one year was 77.2% for patients receiving proactive oesophageal cooling and 64.4% for patients receiving LET monitoring (Figure 1), with a hazard ratio for cooling of 0.65 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.99, P = 0.044). Conclusions Proactive oesophageal cooling was associated with significantly greater freedom from atrial arrhythmia at one year when compared to LET monitoring during RF ablation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gallagher et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: