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.

A wearable cardioverter defibrillator with a low false alarm rate.

INTRODUCTION: A wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is indicated in appropriate patients to reduce the risk for sudden cardiac death. Challenges for patients wearing a WCD have been frequent false shock alarms primarily due to electrocardiogram noise and wear discomfort. The objective of this study was to test a contemporary WCD designed for reduced false shock alarms and improved comfort. METHODS: One hundred and thirty patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and an active implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) were fitted with the ASSURE WCD (Kestra Medical Technologies) and followed for 30 days. WCD detection was enabled and shock alarm markers recorded, but shocks and shock alarms were disabled. All WCD episodes and ICD ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) episodes were adjudicated. The primary endpoint was the false-positive shock alarm rate with a performance goal of 1 every 3.4 days (0.29 per patient-day). RESULTS: Of 163 WCD episodes, 4 were VT/VF and 159 non-VT/VF (121 rhythms with noise, 32 uncertain with noise, 6 atrial flutter without noise). Only three false-positive shock alarm markers were recorded; one false-positive shock alarm every 1333 patient-days (0.00075 per patient-day, 95% confidence interval: 0.00015-0.00361; p < .001). No ICD recorded VT/VF episodes meeting WCD detection criteria (≥170 bpm for ≥20 s) were missed by the WCD during 3501 patient-days of use. Median wear was 31.0 days (interquartile range [IQR] 2.0) and median daily use 23.0 h (IQR 1.7). Adverse events were mostly mild: skin irritation (19.4%) and musculoskeletal discomfort (8.5%). CONCLUSION: The ASSURE WCD demonstrated a low false-positive shock alarm rate, low patient-reported discomfort, and no serious adverse events.