Risk Factor Management and Atrial Fibrillation Clinics: Saving the Best for Last?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a leading cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality worldwide. Management of AF is a complex process involving: 1) the prevention of thromboembolic complications with anticoagulation; 2) rhythm control; and 3) the detection and treatment of underlying heart disease. However, cardiometabolic risk factors, such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obstructive sleep apnoea, have been proposed as contributors to the expanding epidemic of atrial fibrillation (AF). Thus, a fourth pillar of AF care would include aggressive targeting of interdependent, modifiable cardiovascular risk factors as part of an integrated care model. Such risk factor management could retard and reverse the pathological processes underlying AF and reduce AF burden.

Intracardiac ultrasound for esophageal anatomic assessment and localization during left atrial ablation for atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal injury during left atrial ablation is associated with a significant risk of mortality and morbidity. There are no validated approaches to reduce injury outside of avoidance, a strategy critically dependent on a precise understanding of the esophageal anatomy and location. Intracardiac ultrasound (ICE) can provide a real-time assessment of the esophagus during ablation. We hypothesized that ICE can accurately define esophageal anatomy and location to enhance avoidance strategies during ablation. METHODS: Fifty patients underwent atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. The left atrium and pulmonary vein anatomies were rendered by traditional electroanatomic mapping (CARTO). A Navistar catheter within the esophagus was used to create a traditional electroanatomic esophageal anatomy. ICE imaging was used to create a second geometry of the esophagus. The traditional and ICE anatomies of the esophagus were compared and the greatest border dimensions used to avoid injury. RESULTS: The average age was 66 ± 10 years, 45% had persistent/longstanding persistent AF, and 18% had a prior AF ablation. The esophagus location was leftward in 17 (34%), midline in 22 (44%), and rightward in 11 (22%). Traditional esophagus and ICE imaging correlated within 1 cm in the greatest distance in 26 (52%) patients. Traditional imaging underestimated the esophageal location by >1-1.5 cm in 9 (18%) and >1.5 cm in 15 (30%). In those with poor correlation (>1.5 cm), the most common cause was the presence of a hiatal hernia. Ablation energy delivery was performed outside the greatest esophagus anatomy borders. Of those with 12-month follow-up, 75% were AF/atrial flutter free without antiarrhythmic drugs. No esophageal injuries were observed. One patient experienced a TIA greater than 6 months postablation. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that traditional means of mapping the esophagus using a catheter within the esophagus are insufficient and often grossly underestimate the actual anatomy. Imaging techniques that define the complete esophageal lumen should be considered to truly minimize esophageal injury risk.