Key result
Esophageal temperature monitoring during radiofrequency atrial fibrillation ablation did not reduce endoscopically detected esophageal lesions (12.3% vs 6.6%; OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.49-4.22; p=0.51).
Why the study?
Esophageal temperature monitoring is advocated to prevent esophageal injury during AF ablation, but evidence supporting its use is scarce and controversial.
Does esophageal temperature monitoring prevent endoscopically detected esophageal lesions in patients undergoing radiofrequency atrial fibrillation ablation?
Meta-Analysis (n=1,112)
Does esophageal temperature monitoring prevent endoscopically detected esophageal lesions in patients undergoing radiofrequency atrial fibrillation ablation?
Odds Ratio: 1.44 (95% CI 0.49–4.22)
Absolute Event Rate: 12.3% vs 6.6%
p-value: p=.51
Esophageal temperature monitoring during radiofrequency atrial fibrillation ablation does not reduce the incidence of esophageal lesions and may lead to higher energy delivery on the posterior wall.
ETM does not reduce EDELs and may permit higher posterior wall energy; challenges routine use and leaves open need for definitive RCTs.
Introduction The use of esophageal temperature monitoring (ETM) for the prevention of esophageal injury during atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is often advocated. However, evidence supporting its use is scarce and controversial. We therefore aimed to review the evidence assessing the efficacy of ETM for the prevention of esophageal injury. Methods We performed a meta‐analysis and systematic review of the available literature from inception to December 31, 2022. All studies comparing the use of ETM, versus no ETM, during radiofrequency (RF) AF ablation and which reported the incidence of endoscopically detected esophageal lesions (EDELs) were included. Results Eleven studies with a total of 1112 patients undergoing RF AF ablation were identified. Of those patients, 627 were assigned to ETM (56%). The overall incidence of EDELs was 9.8%. The use of ETM during AF ablation was associated with a non significant increase in the incidence of EDELs (12.3% with ETM, vs. 6.6 % without ETM, odds ratio, 1.44, 95%CI, 0.49, 4.22, p = .51, I 2 = 72%). The use of ETM was associated with a significant increase in the energy delivered specifically on the posterior wall compared to patients without ETM (mean power difference: 5.13 Watts, 95% CI, 1.52, 8.74, p = .005). Conclusions The use of ETM does not reduce the incidence of EDELs during RF AF ablation. The higher energy delivered on the posterior wall is likely attributable to a false sense of safety that may explain the lack of benefit of ETM. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to provide conclusive results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salihu et al. (2024) conducted a meta-analysis in Atrial fibrillation (n=1,112). Esophageal temperature monitoring vs. No esophageal temperature monitoring was evaluated on Incidence of endoscopically detected esophageal lesions (EDELs) (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.49, 4.22, p=.51). Esophageal temperature monitoring during radiofrequency atrial fibrillation ablation did not reduce endoscopically detected esophageal lesions (12.3% vs 6.6%; OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.49-4.22; p=0.51).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: