Why the study?
Although the cryoballoon can be used for left atrial posterior wall isolation beyond pulmonary vein isolation, scrutiny of esophageal injuries during this procedure had never been performed.
What is the incidence of esophageal injury and gastric hypomotility following cryoballoon ablation for left atrial posterior wall isolation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
What is the incidence of esophageal injury and gastric hypomotility following cryoballoon ablation for left atrial posterior wall isolation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
Cryoballoon ablation for left atrial posterior wall isolation in persistent AF carries a notable risk of esophageal lesions and gastric hypomotility, which cannot be reliably predicted by luminal esophageal temperature monitoring.
BACKGROUND: The cryoballoon (CB) can be utilized for extra pulmonary vein (PV) ablation such as for a left atrial (LA) posterior wall (LAPW) isolation. However, scrutiny of the esophageal injuries during the LAPW isolation has never been performed. We sought to thoroughly investigate the esophageal lesions (ELs) and gastric hypomotility (GH) caused by an LAPW isolation using a CB. METHODS: A total of 101 persistent atrial fibrillation patients who underwent an LAPW isolation using a CB were enrolled. The CB was applied on the roof and bottom area of the LAPW after a PV isolation. The luminal esophageal temperature (LET) was monitored by a thermistor probe during the CB applications. When the LET reached 15°C, the freezing application was prematurely interrupted. Esophagogastroscopy was performed on the next day following the ablation. RESULTS: All PVs were successfully isolated in all patients. A successful LAPW isolation solely with CB ablation was performed in 72 (71.3%) patients. Cryofreezing applications were prematurely interrupted due to low LETs in 49 (48.5%) patients predominantly during the LA bottom line ablation. ELs and GH were observed in 11 (10.9%) and 16 patients (15.8%), respectively. The nadir LET tended to be lower in patients with ELs and GH than in those without (ELs: 14.8 ± 4.5°C vs 17.4 ± 6.0°C, P = 0.17; GH: 15.5 ± 4.5°C vs 17.5 ± 6.1°C, P = 0.23, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal complications such as ELs and GH occur during the LAPW isolation with a CB. There was no reliable predictor of those adverse events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shigeta et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: