2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2018.09.027
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Temporal relationships between esophageal injury type and progression in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation catheter ablation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
58
0
5

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 64 publications
(67 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
4
58
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…The use of a standardized classification of esophageal lesions (Kansas City Classification [KCC]) was recently proposed to identify patients with low‐risk esophageal lesions who might benefit from conservative management. In this study, all patients with erythema (KCC type 1) and superficial ulcers (KCC type 2a) responded to conservative therapy and recovered within 2 and 4 weeks, respectively 24 …”
Section: Esophageal Injury: Clinical Evaluation and Managementmentioning
confidence: 72%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The use of a standardized classification of esophageal lesions (Kansas City Classification [KCC]) was recently proposed to identify patients with low‐risk esophageal lesions who might benefit from conservative management. In this study, all patients with erythema (KCC type 1) and superficial ulcers (KCC type 2a) responded to conservative therapy and recovered within 2 and 4 weeks, respectively 24 …”
Section: Esophageal Injury: Clinical Evaluation and Managementmentioning
confidence: 72%
“… 22 The type and severity of esophageal injury vary according to the extension of thermal damage to the esophageal wall (transmural involvement), as it happens from the outside in. Mild, superficial lesions with erythematous changes are more frequent and usually associated with a better prognosis, while deep ulcerations and hemorrhagic signs are more prone to evolve to esophageal perforation and, ultimately, AEF 23,24 …”
Section: Esophageal Injury: Pathogenesis and Risk Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…EUS was performed by experienced operators to assess the magnitude of EI. EI was defined as any esophageal lesion adjacent to the contact area between the esophagus and the LA, and was defined according to Kansas City classification: type 1: erythema; type 2: ulcers (2a: superficial ulcers; 2b: deep ulcers); type 3: perforation (3a: perforation without communication with the atria; 3b: perforation with atrioesophageal fistula) 18 . All gastroscopies (GIFQ 260, GIFQ 165, GIFQ 145; Olympus, Japan) were performed by endoscopists in an endoscopy laboratory.…”
Section: Overlap Between the Ablation Lesion And Esophagus Course Bementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ablation‐induced EDELs have been documented in up to 56% of AF ablation patients and may be precursors of perforating severe esophageal complications like atrioesophageal fistula . The incidence of perforating esophageal complications reported may be lower than the true incidence because of underdetection and underreporting.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…esophageal complications like atrioesophageal fistula. 2,3 The incidence of perforating esophageal complications reported may be lower than the true incidence because of underdetection and underreporting. According to a worldwide survey and a registry study, the incidence of atrioesophageal fistula after AF ablation was below 0.2%, whereas a recently published study with rigid postablation endoscopy found an incidence of atrioesophageal fistula and esophageal perforation of up to 0.6% in patients.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%