Comparison of computed tomography imaging with intraprocedural contrast esophagram: implications for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) has been used to localize the esophagus before radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare esophageal imaging by CT versus esophagram. METHODS: CT imaging of the left atrium was performed in 57 patients 1 week before RFA and was imported into the CARTO mapping system. The electrophysiologist created a virtual shell of the left atrium and pulmonary veins (PVs) that was merged with the CT image; however, the CT-defined location of the esophagus was not displayed. The patient was then given 10 mL of oral contrast. Using fluoroscopy, an electroanatomic catheter tagged the esophageal borders outlined by esophagram. The CT-defined esophagus was then imported, and the borders were tagged on the merged map. In this manner, the esophagus borders by esophagram versus those by CT were compared. RESULTS: The maximum diameter of the esophagus by esophagram versus CT was not different (16.3 +/- 3.4 vs. 16.5 +/- 3.1 mm; P = .7). The esophagus was near the left PVs in 34 (62%), center in 13 (24%), and near the right PVs in eight (15%) patients. There was concordance between CT and esophagram in 48 of 55 patients (87%; P = .2). Ye, in 21 (44%) of 48 patients with concordant location, the CT-defined esophageal borders were separated from the esophagram-defined borders by >or=50% of the esophagus diameter. CONCLUSIONS: Reliance on remotely acquired CT images does not ensure adequate intraprocedural localization of the esophagus or enhance recognition of esophageal motility.

Extraction of transvenous pacing and ICD leads.

The emergence of pacing and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) systems, along with expanding indications of these devices (e.g., cardiac resynchronization therapy and sudden cardiac death prevention), increasing infection rates, and device recalls have created the need for removing and upgrading these systems due to various reasons. Removing the pulse generator of a system is generally uncomplicated. Chronically implanted transvenous leads, however, adhere to the venous endothelium and endocardial tissues over time due to fibrosis. Removal of such leads can be a significantly complex procedure requiring tools and techniques that free the lead at fibrotic binding sites. In this article, the state-of-the-art tools and techniques that provide a systematic approach to consistently and safely extract these devices will be reviewed.