<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Atrial-esophageal fistula (AEF) is a rare but life-threatening complication of catheter ablation. The clinical presentation and mortality risk factors of AEF have not been fully elucidated. The aim of this study was to systematically review the clinical characteristics and prognosis of AEF. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> PubMed was searched from inception to October 2020 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement protocol. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 190 AEF patients were included. The mean age was 59.29 ± 11.67 years, 74.21% occurred in males, and 81.58% underwent radiofrequency ablation. AEF occurred within 30 days after ablation in 80.82% of patients and occurred later in patients presenting with neurological symptoms compared with other symptoms (median of onset time: 27.5 days vs. 16 days, <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001). Clinical presentation included fever (81.58%) and neurological symptoms (80.53%). Chest computed tomography (abnormal rate of 91.24%) was the preferred diagnostic test, followed by magnetic resonance imaging of the brain (abnormal rate of 90.91%). Repeated testing improved diagnostic evaluation sensitivity. Distinctive imaging results included free air in the mediastinum (incidence rate of 81.73%) and air embolism of the brain (incidence rate of 57.53%). The overall mortality was 63.16%, with worse nonsurgical treatment outcomes compared with outcomes of surgical treatment (94.19% vs. 33.71%, <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001). Conservative or stent intervention was an independent risk factor for mortality. Age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.063, <i>p</i> = 0.004), presentation with neurological symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 5.706, <i>p</i> = 0.017), and presentation with gastrointestinal bleeds (adjusted odds ratio, 3.009, <i>p</i> = 0.045) were also predictors of mortality. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> AEF is a fatal ablation complication. AEF can be diagnosed using a combination of a clinical history of ablation, infection, or neurological symptoms and an abnormal chest CT. Our analysis supports that surgical treatment reduces the mortality rate.

BackgroundAt present, catheter ablation is an effective method for rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, AF recurrence is an inevitable problem after catheter ablation. To identify patients who are prone to relapse, we developed a predictive model that allows clinicians to closely monitor these patients and treat them with different personalized treatment plans.Materials and methodsA total of 1,065 patients who underwent AF catheter ablation between January 2015 and December 2018 were consecutively included in this study, which examines the results of a 2-year follow-up. Patients with AF were divided into development cohort and validation cohort. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out on the potential risk factors. Specific risk factors were used to draw the nomogram according to the above results. Finally, we verified the performance of our model compared with CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-Vasc scores by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and calibration curve and plotted the decision analysis curve (DAC).ResultsA total of 316 patients experienced AF recurrence. After univariate and multivariate analyses, AF history (H), age (A), snoring (S), body mass index (BMI) (B), anteroposterior diameter of left atrial (LA) (L), and persistent AF (P) were included in our prediction model. Our model showed a better performance compared with CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-Vasc scores, and the area under ROC curve (95%CI) was 0.7668 (0.7298–0.8037) vs. 0.6225 (0.5783–0.6666) and 0.6267 (0.5836–0.6717).ConclusionWe established a nomogram (HASBLP score) for predicting AF recurrence after the first catheter ablation at a 2-year follow-up, which can be used as a tool to guide future follow-up of patients. However, its usefulness needs further validation.

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an effective means of preventing ischemic stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is the primary imaging technique to guide LAAC. Its shortcomings, namely the use of general anesthesia and tracheal intubation, inevitably increase procedural risks. Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE), a novel imaging modality for guiding LAAC, has proven more advantageous over TEE due to use of local anesthesia, shortened procedural time, and reduced radiation exposure. This review highlights the differences between ICE and TEE guided LAAC, aiming to provide a reference for clinical decision-making.