Determination of Continuity Index Values in Atrial Fibrillation Ablation with Proactive Esophageal Cooling.

Radiofrequency (RF) ablation to perform pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation involves some risk to collateral structures, including the esophagus. Proactive esophageal cooling using a dedicated device has been granted marketing authorization by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reduce the risk of ablation-related esophageal injury due to RF cardiac ablation procedures, and more recent data also suggest that esophageal cooling may contribute to improved long-term efficacy of treatment. A mechanistic underpinning explaining these findings exists through the quantification of lesion placement contiguity defined as the Continuity Index (CI). Kautzner et al. quantified the CI by the order of lesion placement, such that whenever a lesion is placed non-adjacent to the prior lesion, the CI is incremented by the number of segments the catheter tip has moved over. To facilitate real-time calculation of the CI and encourage further adoption of this instrument, we propose a modification in which the placement of non-adjacent lesions increments the CI by only one unit, avoiding the need to count potentially nebulous markers of atrial segmentation. The objective of this protocol is to describe the methods of calculating the CI both prospectively during real-time PVI cases and retrospectively using recorded case data. A comparison of the results obtained between cases that utilized proactive esophageal cooling and cases that used luminal esophageal temperature (LET) monitoring is then provided.

Reduced Continuity Index with Proactive Esophageal Cooling Compared to Luminal Temperature Monitoring During Radiofrequency Ablation: Improved Lesion Continuity with Esophageal Cooling.

Background: Proactive esophageal cooling is FDA cleared to reduce the likelihood of esophageal injury during radiofrequency ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Long-term follow-up data have also shown improved freedom from arrhythmia with proactive esophageal cooling compared to luminal esophageal temperature (LET) monitoring during pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). One hypothesized mechanism is improved lesion contiguity (as measured by the Continuity Index) with the use of cooling. We aimed to compare the Continuity Index of PVI cases using proactive esophageal cooling to those using LET monitoring. Methods: Continuity Index was calculated for PVI cases at two different hospitals within the same health system using a slightly modified Continuity Index to facilitate both real-time calculation during observation of PVI cases and retrospective determination from recorded cases. The results were then compared between proactively cooled cases and those using LET monitoring. Results: Continuity Indices for a total of 101 cases were obtained; 77 cases using proactive esophageal cooling and 24 cases using traditional LET monitoring. With proactive esophageal cooling, the average Continuity Index was 2.7 (1.3 on the left pulmonary vein, and 1.5 on the right pulmonary vein). With LET monitoring, the average Continuity Index was 27.3 (14.3 on the left, and 12.9 on the right), for a difference of 24.6 (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Proactive esophageal cooling during PVI is associated with significantly improved lesion contiguity when compared to LET monitoring. This finding may offer a mechanism for the greater freedom from arrhythmia seen with proactive cooling in long-term follow-up.