Objective
To compare the prevalence of esophageal and periesophageal thermal injury in patients undergoing radiofrequency (RF) atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation using 8 mm tip catheters during three different esophageal protection strategies.
Methods
Forty‐five consecutive patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF underwent first ablation procedure, besides esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) combined with radial endosonography (EUS) performed before and after the pulmonary vein (PV) isolation. Before the procedure, patients were randomly assigned to one of three esophageal lesion protection strategies: group I—without any protective or monitoring dispositive and limiting RF applications to 30 W for 20 seconds, in left atrium posterior wall (LAPW); group II—power and time of RF delivery, up to 50 W for 20 seconds at LAPW, limited by esophageal temperature monitoring; group III—applications of RF in LAPW with fixed power application of 50 W for 20 seconds during continuous esophageal cooling.
Results
Baseline characteristics of patients were similar in all groups. The four PVs were isolated in 14 (93.3%), 13 (86.7%), and 15 (100%) patients, respectively in groups I, II, and III. The mean RF power was significantly higher (P < .001) in the posterior side of PVs in group III. Post‐AF ablation EGD and EUS revealed two esophageal wall ulcerations and two periesophageal mediastinal edemas only in the esophageal cooling group (P = .008).
Conclusion
Esophageal cooling balloon strategy resulted in a higher RF power energy delivery when ablating at the LA posterior wall, using 8 mm nonirrigated tip catheters under temperature mode control. Despite that, patients presented a relatively low incidence of esophageal and periesophaeal injuries.
Background
Chagas disease (ChD) is a major cause of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) in Latin America and is becoming more frequent in other parts of the world, especially due to immigration movements. Ventricular Tachycardia (VT) is more common in this type of NICM than others, and finding an effective treatment strategy still is a challenge. Catheter ablation is an option, but there is poor data regarding its efficacy and safety.
Purpose
Evaluate the outcomes after VT catheter ablation in ChD patients.
Methods
Data were collected by VT studies reports and patient record analysis, including comorbidities and clinical status at baseline and on follow-up. We analyzed all-cause mortality, one-year VT recurrence rate and procedure related major complications.
Results
Between January 2013 and December 2018, 157 catheter ablation procedures in 121 ChD patients were performed in our institution. The mean follow-up time was 22.6±22.1 (mean ± SD) months. Overall post procedure mortality was 33.1%, and mean survival time was 51.2 months (95% CI: 44.8–58. NYHA functional class (p=0.022), ejection fraction (p=0.020) and immediate ablation result (p 0.002) were predictors of all-cause mortality in the follow-up. Clinical VT inducibility after ablation was a predictor of VT recurrence at one year (p=0.04). An epicardial approach was performed in 125 (79%) procedures, and accidental right ventricle (RV) puncture occurred in 23 (18.4%), in which open-chest surgery for bleeding hemostasis was necessary in 4 procedures (3.2%).
Conclusion
Mortality and recurrence rates in ChD patients after VT ablation were high, and correlated with heart failure severity. Epicardial approach is often necessary in this subset of patients. There was a correlation between immediate ablation results and recurrence.
Kaplan-Meier of cumulative survival
Funding Acknowledgement
Type of funding source: None
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.