Key result
Urgent surgical intervention is the treatment of choice for left atrial-esophageal fistula, as conservative therapy is associated with unacceptable mortality approaching 80%.
Why the study?
Does urgent surgical intervention reduce mortality compared to conservative therapy in patients with left atrial-esophageal fistula following endovascular ablation?
Does urgent surgical intervention reduce mortality compared to conservative therapy in patients with left atrial-esophageal fistula following endovascular ablation?
Urgent surgical intervention is the recommended treatment for left atrial-esophageal fistula following endovascular ablation due to the near 80% mortality associated with conservative management.
Left atrial-esophageal fistula (AEF) following endovascular ablation is a rare but fatal complication, occurring in less than 1% with a mortality approaching 80%.1,2 Diagnosis is usually delayed and mortality often occurs due to devastating neurologic injury, uncontrollable sepsis, or massive gastrointestinal bleeding.1,2 A contrast computed tomography scan of the chest is usually sufficient for diagnosis. Conservative therapy is associated with unacceptable mortality; therefore, urgent surgical intervention is the treatment of choice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gray et al. (2020) conducted an editorial in Left atrial-esophageal fistula (AEF). Urgent surgical intervention vs. Conservative therapy was evaluated. Urgent surgical intervention is the treatment of choice for left atrial-esophageal fistula, as conservative therapy is associated with unacceptable mortality approaching 80%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: