Key result
Active esophageal cooling during pulmonary vein isolation was associated with a 36-minute (24.7%) reduction in mean procedure time compared to luminal esophageal temperature monitoring.
Why the study?
Active esophageal cooling reduces thermal injury during PVI for AF, but its impact on procedural efficiency is not well characterized.
Does active esophageal cooling reduce total procedure time compared to luminal esophageal temperature monitoring in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=373)
No
Does active esophageal cooling reduce total procedure time compared to luminal esophageal temperature monitoring in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation?
Mean Difference: -36
Absolute Event Rate: 110% vs 146%
p-value: p=<0.001
Active esophageal cooling during pulmonary vein isolation significantly reduces total procedure and fluoroscopy times by eliminating the need for ablation pauses associated with luminal temperature alarms.
Active esophageal cooling may avoid LET-driven ablation pauses during PVI; leaves open impact on procedural efficiency pending randomized data.
BACKGROUND: Active esophageal cooling is increasingly utilized as an alternative to luminal esophageal temperature (LET) monitoring for protection against thermal injury during pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) when treating atrial fibrillation (AF). Published data demonstrate the efficacy of active cooling in reducing thermal injury, but impacts on procedural efficiency are not as well characterized. LET monitoring compels pauses in ablation due to heat stacking and temperature overheating alarms that in turn delay progress of the PVI procedure, whereas active esophageal cooling allows avoidance of this phenomenon. Our objective was to measure the change in PVI procedure duration after implementation of active esophageal cooling as a protective measure against esophageal injury. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review under IRB approval of patients with AF undergoing PVI between January 2018 and February 2020. For each patient, we recorded age, gender, and total procedure time. We then compared procedure times before and after the implementation of active esophageal cooling as a replacement for LET monitoring. RESULTS: A total of 373 patients received PVI over the study period. LET monitoring using a multi-sensor probe was performed in 198 patients, and active esophageal cooling using a dedicated device was performed in 175 patients. Patient characteristics did not significantly differ between groups (mean age of 67 years, and gender 37.4% female). Mean procedure time was 146 ± 51 min in the LET-monitored patients, and 110 ± 39 min in the actively cooled patients, representing a reduction of 36 min, or 24.7% of total procedure time (p < .001). Median procedure time was 141 [IQR 104 to 174] min in the LET-monitored patients and 100 [IQR 84 to 122] min in the actively cooled patients, for a reduction of 41 min, or 29.1% of total procedure time (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of active esophageal cooling for protection against esophageal injury during PVI was associated with a significantly large reduction in procedure duration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Joseph et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=373). Active esophageal cooling vs. Luminal esophageal temperature (LET) monitoring was evaluated on Total procedure time (MD -36 min, p=<0.001). Active esophageal cooling during pulmonary vein isolation was associated with a 36-minute (24.7%) reduction in mean procedure time compared to luminal esophageal temperature monitoring.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: