Esophageal luminal temperature monitoring using a multi-sensor probe lowers the risk of esophageal injury in cryo and radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal luminal temperature monitoring is a commonly used strategy to reduce esophageal thermal injury in catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AFib). OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the incidence of endoscopically detected esophageal lesions (EDEL) between two commonly used esophageal luminal temperature probes. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing ablation with esophageal luminal temperature monitoring and upper endoscopy within 24 h after ablation were included. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-five patients (64 ± 10 years, 44% female) were included. Esophageal temperature monitoring was done with a single-sensor probe in 213 (48%) and multi-sensor probe in 232 (52%). Cryoballoon (CB) ablation was performed in 118 (27%) and radiofrequency (RF) ablation in 327 (73%) of patients. EDEL was present in 94 (22.9%) of which 85 were mild, 8 were moderate, and 1 was severe, and none progressed to atrial-esophageal fistula. The use of the multi-sensor probe during CB ablation was associated with a reduction in EDEL compared to single sensor (6.8% vs 24.3%; P = 0.016). Similarly, in the RF ablation group, EDEL was present in 19.5% of the multi-sensor group vs 32.8% in the single-sensor group (P = 0.001). Logistic regression showed that multi-sensor probe use was associated with reduction in EDEL with an odds ratio of 0.23 in CB ablation (P = 0.024) and 0.44 for RF ablation (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal luminal temperature monitoring during AFib ablation using a multi-sensor probe was associated with a significant reduction in EDEL compared to a single-sensor probe.

Predictors of high-degree atrioventricular block in patients with new-onset left bundle branch block following transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: The development of new left bundle branch block (LBBB) is frequently seen post TAVR and is a known risk factor for progression to high degree AV block. The timing and likelihood of progression into complete heart block is variable and can develop after hospital discharge. We sought to determine predictors for the development of high degree AV block in patients who developed LBBB following TAVR. METHODS: All patients between 2014 and 2019 underwent electrophysiology study after developing LBBB post TAVR. Data on these patients including baseline characteristics, echo parameters, EKG variables, HV interval, and the need for subsequent pacemaker implantation were extracted. A prolonged HV interval was defined as ≥ 65 ms. Clinically significant conduction abnormality was defined as development of high-degree AV block or clinically significant complete heart block. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were included in our study of which 10 (29.4%) developed clinically significant heart block, while 24 (70.6%) did not. The mean HV interval for patients with clinically significant heart block was 70.1 ms vs 57.8 ms for those who did not (p = 0.022). Pre-existing first-degree heart block prior to TAVR (p = 0.026), history of AFib (p = 0.05) in addition to STS score (p = 0.037) were predictors of development of high-degree AV block in our patient population. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who develop LBBB following TAVR, HV interval, pre-existing first-degree heart block, and STS score predict progression to high-degree AV block. Performance of a routine electrophysiology study should be considered for high-risk patients who develop LBBB following TAVR.