Key result
A partial Box isolation strategy for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation yielded similar arrhythmia-free rates to complete Box isolation (48.3% vs 54.1%; P=0.62) without symptomatic esophageal injury.
Why the study?
Does a partial Box isolation strategy maintain arrhythmia-free rates compared to complete Box isolation in patients with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation experiencing frequent esophageal temperature rises?
Cohort (n=217)
Does a partial Box isolation strategy maintain arrhythmia-free rates compared to complete Box isolation in patients with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation experiencing frequent esophageal temperature rises?
Absolute Event Rate: 48.3% vs 54.1%
p-value: p=0.62
Shifting to a partial Box isolation strategy is feasible and yields similar arrhythmia-free rates as complete Box isolation in patients with non-paroxysmal AF experiencing frequent esophageal temperature rises.
Partial Box isolation may avoid esophageal injury with similar arrhythmia-free rates; leaves open randomized validation in non-paroxysmal AF.
INTRODUCTION: There are some cases with frequent luminal esophageal temperature (LET) rises despite titrating the radiofrequency energy while creating a linear lesion for the Box isolation of atrial fibrillation (AF). Little is known about the feasibility of redesigning the ablation lines for a modified Box isolation strategy to prevent fatal esophageal injury in those cases. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two hundred and seventeen patients who underwent a Box isolation of non-paroxysmal AF were evaluated. We divided them into 2 groups, patients in whom a box lesion set of the entire posterior left atrium had been achieved (complete Box isolation [CBI]; n = 157) and those in whom 2 additional peri-esophageal vertical lines were created at both the right and left ends of the esophagus, and those areas were left with an incomplete isolation when frequent rapid LET rises above 39.0 °C were observed while creating the floor line (partial Box isolation [PBI]; n = 60). During 20.1 ± 13.9 months of follow-up, the arrhythmia-free rates were 54.1% in the CBI group versus 48.3% in the PBI group (P = 0.62). In the second session, a complete Box isolation was highly achieved even in the PBI group (94.3% vs. 83.3%, respectively; P = 0.17) and after 2 procedures, the arrhythmia-free rates increased to 75.2% vs. 68.3%, respectively (P = 0.34). There was no symptomatic esophageal injury in the PBI group. CONCLUSION: In the case of frequent LET rises while creating the linear lesions for the Box isolation strategy for non-paroxysmal AF, shifting to the PBI strategy was feasible.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Higuchi et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (n=217). Partial Box isolation (PBI) vs. Complete Box isolation (CBI) was evaluated on Arrhythmia-free rates (p=0.62). A partial Box isolation strategy for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation yielded similar arrhythmia-free rates to complete Box isolation (48.3% vs 54.1%; P=0.62) without symptomatic esophageal injury.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: