Background: Esophageal thermal lesion (ETL) is a complication of radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation (RFAF). To prospectively compare the incidence of ETL, we used two linear, five- and three-sensor esophageal thermal monitoring catheters (ETMC5 and ETMC3). We also evaluated the predictors of ETL.
Methods: Patients receiving their first RFAF (n = 106) were randomized into two groups, ETMC5 (n = 52) and ETMC3 (n = 54). Ablation was followed by esophagogastroduodenoscopy within 3 days.
Results: Esophageal thermal lesion was detected in 7/106 (6.6%) patients (ETMC5: 3/52 [5.8%] vs. ETMC3: 4/54 [7.4%]; p = 1.0). The maximum temperature and number of measurements > 39.0°C did not differ between the groups (ETMC5: 40.5°C and 5.4 vs. ETMC3: 40.6°C and 4.9; p = .83 and p = .58, respectively). In ETMC5 group, the catheter had to be moved significantly less often (0.12 vs. 0.42; p = .0014) and fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter (79.2 min vs. 101.7 min; p = .0038) compared with ECMC3 group. The total number of ablations in ETMC5 group was significantly greater (50.2 vs. 37.7; p = .030) and ablation time was significantly longer (52.1 min vs. 40.1 min; p = .0039). Only body mass index (BMI) was significantly different between patients with and without ETL (21.4 ± 2.5 vs. 24.3 ± 3.4; p = .022).
Conclusions: The incidence of ETL was comparable between ETMC5 and ETMC3 groups; however, fluoroscopy time, total ablation time, and total number of ablations differed significantly. Lower BMI may increase the risk of developing ETL.
Keywords: atrial fibrillation; atrio-esophageal fistula; catheter ablation; esophageal injury; esophageal thermal lesion; esophageal thermal monitoring.
© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.