Key result
Surround flow irrigation during contact force ablation yielded a non-significant increase in oesophageal lesions compared to conventional irrigation (18% vs 8%, P=0.23).
Why the study?
Does surround flow irrigation technology increase the incidence of endoscopically detected oesophageal lesions compared to conventional irrigation in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation?
Cohort (n=100)
Does surround flow irrigation technology increase the incidence of endoscopically detected oesophageal lesions compared to conventional irrigation in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation?
Absolute Event Rate: 18% vs 8%
p-value: p=0.23
The use of surround flow irrigation technology in contact force ablation for atrial fibrillation was associated with a numerically higher, but not statistically significant, rate of asymptomatic oesophageal lesions compared to conventional irrigation.
Surround flow irrigation should not yet alter irrigation choice during contact force AF ablation; leaves open whether larger studies detect a difference in oesophageal injury.
AIMS: Aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a recently introduced contact force ablation catheter with modified irrigation technology compared with a conventionally irrigated ablation catheter on the incidence of endoscopically detected oesophageal lesions (EDEL). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with symptomatic, drug-refractory paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) who underwent left atrial radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation were prospectively enrolled. Patients were ablated using a single-tip RF contact force ablation catheter with conventional irrigation (Group 1; n = 50) or with a recently introduced intensified 'surround flow' irrigation technology (Group 2; n = 50). Assessment of EDEL was performed by oesophagogastroduodenoscopy in all patients after ablation. A total of 100 patients (mean age 63.6 ± 12.1 years; men 58%) with paroxysmal (n = 41; 41%) or persistent AF were included. Groups 1 and 2 patients were comparable in regard to baseline characteristics and procedural parameters, especially ablation time at posterior left atrial wall. Overall, 13 patients (13%) developed EDEL after AF ablation (8 oesophageal ulcerations, 5 erythema). The incidence of EDEL including oesophageal ulcerations was higher in Group 2 compared with Group 1 patients without statistical significance (18 vs. 8%, P = 0.23). One pericardial tamponade and one access site bleeding occurred in Group 2. No further adverse events were reported in both groups. CONCLUSION: According to these preliminary results, the use of an improved ablation catheter irrigation technology (surround flow) in conjunction with contact force measurement was associated with a higher but not statistically significant probability of oesophageal thermal lesions. Further studies including larger patient cohorts are needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Halbfaß et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in symptomatic, drug-refractory paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation (n=100). Contact force ablation catheter with surround flow irrigation vs. Contact force ablation catheter with conventional irrigation was evaluated on Incidence of endoscopically detected oesophageal lesions (EDEL) (p=0.23). Surround flow irrigation during contact force ablation yielded a non-significant increase in oesophageal lesions compared to conventional irrigation (18% vs 8%, P=0.23).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: