Prevention of esophageal lesions during atrial fibrillation catheter ablation using esophageal temperature monitoring: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

• Published in: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology 2024-05, Vol.47 (5), p.614-625
• Main Authors: Salihu, Adil, Lu, Henri, Maurizi, Niccolo, Tzimas, Georgios, Herrera Siklody, Claudia, Le Bloa, Mathieu, Domenichini, Giulia, Teres, Cheryl, Hugelshofer, Sarah, Monney, Pierre, Pruvot, Etienne, Muller, Olivier, Antiochos, Panagiotis, Pascale, Patrizio
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Ablation; atrial fibrillation; Atrial Fibrillation - prevention & control; Atrial Fibrillation - surgery; Body Temperature; Cardiac arrhythmia; Catheter Ablation; Clinical trials; esophageal lesion; Esophagus; Esophagus - injuries; Fibrillation; Humans; Intraoperative Complications - prevention & control; Meta-analysis; Monitoring, Intraoperative - methods; radiofrequency; Systematic review; temperature probe
• ISSN: 0147-8389; 1540-8159; 1540-8159
• DOI: 10.1111/pace.14972

Introduction The use of esophageal temperature monitoring (ETM) for the prevention of esophageal injury during atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is often advocated. However, evidence supporting its use is scarce and controversial. We therefore aimed to review the evidence assessing the efficacy of ETM for the prevention of esophageal injury. Methods We performed a meta‐analysis and systematic review of the available literature from inception to December 31, 2022. All studies comparing the use of ETM, versus no ETM, during radiofrequency (RF) AF ablation and which reported the incidence of endoscopically detected esophageal lesions (EDELs) were included. Results Eleven studies with a total of 1112 patients undergoing RF AF ablation were identified. Of those patients, 627 were assigned to ETM (56%). The overall incidence of EDELs was 9.8%. The use of ETM during AF ablation was associated with a non significant increase in the incidence of EDELs (12.3% with ETM, vs. 6.6 % without ETM, odds ratio, 1.44, 95%CI, 0.49, 4.22, p = .51, I2 = 72%). The use of ETM was associated with a significant increase in the energy delivered specifically on the posterior wall compared to patients without ETM (mean power difference: 5.13 Watts, 95% CI, 1.52, 8.74, p = .005). Conclusions The use of ETM does not reduce the incidence of EDELs during RF AF ablation. The higher energy delivered on the posterior wall is likely attributable to a false sense of safety that may explain the lack of benefit of ETM. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to provide conclusive results.