Association between proactive esophageal cooling and increased lab throughput.

INTRODUCTION: Proactive esophageal cooling has been FDA cleared to reduce the likelihood of ablation-related esophageal injury resulting from radiofrequency (RF) cardiac ablation procedures. Data suggest that procedure times for RF pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) also decrease when proactive esophageal cooling is employed instead of luminal esophageal temperature (LET) monitoring. Reduced procedure times may allow increased electrophysiology (EP) lab throughput. We aimed to quantify the change in EP lab throughput of PVI cases after the introduction of proactive esophageal cooling. METHODS: EP lab throughput data were obtained from three EP groups. We then compared EP lab throughput over equal time frames at each site before (pre-adoption) and after (post-adoption) the adoption of proactive esophageal cooling. RESULTS: Over the time frame of the study, a total of 2498 PVIs were performed over a combined 74 months, with cooling adopted in September 2021, November 2021, and March 2022 at each respective site. In the pre-adoption time frame, 1026 PVIs were performed using a combination of LET monitoring with the addition of esophageal deviation when deemed necessary by the operator. In the post-adoption time frame, 1472 PVIs were performed using exclusively proactive esophageal cooling, representing a mean 43% increase in throughput (p < .0001), despite the loss of two operators during the post-adoption time frame. CONCLUSION: Adoption of proactive esophageal cooling during PVI ablation procedures is associated with a significant increase in EP lab throughput, even after a reduction in total number of operating physicians in the post-adoption group.

Screening for Autism Spectrum Disorder in Young Children: Still Not Enough Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Early detection of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has the potential to significantly reduce the impact of the condition, however previous reviews have found little evidence to support screening programs for ASD in young children. METHODS: We conducted a review with the aim of updating evidence on 3 aspects: (a) diagnostic stability of ASD in young children; (b) accuracy of ASD screening tools in young children; and (c) the benefits of early interventions in screen-detected young children with ASD. RESULTS: A total of 33 studies were included in our review. Five studies looking at diagnostic stability reported estimates ranging from 71.9% to 100%, however the majority only included a follow-up of 24 months and all studies raised concerns regarding the risk of bias due particularly to lack of blinding, sample size, and patient flow. A total of 25 studies, reported in 26 articles, were identified that reported accuracy data on 11 screening tools. Most of the reports were concerned with versions of M-CHAT, reporting sensitivity estimates from 0.67 to 1.0; however, many of these were deemed to be of high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and follow-up. Four studies reported on early interventions in screen-detected children; however, the majority did not find significant improvements on the relevant outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the evidence on screening for ASD in young children captured by this review is not conclusive regarding the 3 aspects of screening in this population. Future studies should attempt to ensure blinded diagnostic assessments, include longer follow-up periods and limit attrition.