Atrioesophageal Fistula Rates Before and After Adoption of Active Esophageal Cooling During Atrial Fibrillation Ablation.

BACKGROUND: Active esophageal cooling reduces the incidence of endoscopically identified severe esophageal lesions during radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation of the left atrium for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. A formal analysis of the atrioesophageal fistula (AEF) rate with active esophageal cooling has not previously been performed. OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to compare AEF rates before and after the adoption of active esophageal cooling. METHODS: This institutional review board (IRB)-approved study was a prospective analysis of retrospective data, designed before collecting and analyzing the real-world data. The number of AEFs occurring in equivalent time frames before and after adoption of cooling using a dedicated esophageal cooling device (ensoETM, Attune Medical) were quantified across 25 prespecified hospital systems. AEF rates were then compared using generalized estimating equations robust to cluster correlation. RESULTS: A total of 14,224 patients received active esophageal cooling during RF ablation across the 25 hospital systems, which included a total of 30 separate hospitals. In the time frames before adoption of active cooling, a total of 10,962 patients received primarily luminal esophageal temperature (LET) monitoring during their RF ablations. In the preadoption cohort, a total of 16 AEFs occurred, for an AEF rate of 0.146%, in line with other published estimates for procedures using LET monitoring. In the postadoption cohort, no AEFs were found in the prespecified sites, yielding an AEF rate of 0% (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of active esophageal cooling during RF ablation of the left atrium for the treatment of atrial fibrillation was associated with a significant reduction in AEF rate.

Predictive value of ventricular arrhythmia inducibility for subsequent ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation in Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II patients.

UNLABELLED: In the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)-randomized patients underwent electrophysiologic testing. Both inducible and noninducible patients received an ICD. We correlated inducibility with the occurrence of subsequent ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). Intracardiac ICD electrograms for subsequent events were analyzed to categorize the spontaneous arrhythmia as VT or VF. The two-year Kaplan-Meier event rate for VT in inducible patients was 29.0% versus 19.3% in noninducible patients. However, ICD therapy for spontaneous VF was less common at two years in inducible patients (3.2%) than in noninducible patients (8.6%). In the MADIT II study, inducibility predicted an increased likelihood of VT but decreased VF. OBJECTIVES: We correlated electrophysiologic inducibility with spontaneous ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II. BACKGROUND: In the MADIT II study, 593 (82%) of 720 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) randomized patients underwent electrophysiologic testing. Patients received an ICD whether they were inducible or not. METHODS: A "standard" inducibility definition included sustained monomorphic or polymorphic VT induced with three or fewer extrastimuli or VF induced with two or fewer extrastimuli. We compared a narrow inducibility definition (only monomorphic VT) and a broad definition (standard definition plus VF with three extrastimuli). We used ICD-stored electrograms to categorize spontaneous VT or VF. RESULTS: Inducible patients (standard definition) had a greater likelihood of experiencing ICD therapy for VT than noninducible patients (p = 0.023). Unexpectedly, ICD therapy for spontaneous VF was less common (p = 0.021) in inducible patients than in noninducible patients. The two-year Kaplan-Meier event rate for VT or VF was 29.4% for inducible patients and 25.5% for noninducible patients. Standard inducibility did not predict the combined end point of VT or VF (p = 0.280, by log-rank analysis). The narrow inducibility definition outperformed the standard definition, whereas the broad definition appeared inferior to the standard definition. CONCLUSIONS: In the MADIT II study patients, inducibility was associated with an increased likelihood of VT. Noninducible MADIT II study subjects using this electrophysiologic protocol had a considerable VT event rate and a higher VF event rate than inducible patients. Induction of polymorphic VT or VF, even with double extrastimuli, appears less relevant than induction of monomorphic VT.