An Esophageal Cooling Device During Radiofrequency Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation-A Comparison Between Reactive and Proactive Esophageal Cooling.

Esophageal thermal injury is one of the most feared risks of ablation of the posterior left atrium despite the various devices used to monitor esophageal temperature or deviate the esophagus. Reactive cooling, in which cold water is manually instilled into the esophagus via an orogastric tube in response to rises in luminal esophageal temperature (LET), has been used by operators, but the availability of a dedicated esophageal cooling device offers the ability to provide proactive esophageal cooling without having to react to individual temperature rises in the esophagus. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using a commercially available esophageal cooling device to provide esophageal protection during left atrial catheter ablation, then to compare this approach to standard LET monitoring with reactive cooling via manual cold-water instillation. In this study, we randomized 6 patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. Three patients received the standard of care for our site (use of a single-sensor temperature probe, with adjunct ice-water instillation for any temperature increases of >1°C). Three patients underwent standard ablation after placement of the esophageal cooling device at a circulating water temperature of 4°C, without the use of any esophageal temperature monitoring. All patients underwent transesophageal echocardiography and esophagogastroduodenoscopy on the day prior to the ablation, followed by a second esophagogastroduodenoscopy the day after. The 6 patients in this study were enrolled between March and August 2018. In the 3 control patients, 1 had no evidence of esophageal mucosal damage, 1 had diffuse sloughing of the esophageal mucosa and multiple ulcerations, and 1 had a superficial ulcer with a large clot. Both patients with lesions were classified as 2a cases using the Zargar grading scheme for caustic injury. In the 3 patients treated with the cooling device, 1 had no evidence of esophageal mucosal damage, 1 had esophageal erythema (Zargar grade 1), and 1 had a solitary Zargar grade 2a lesion. At 3 months of follow-up, 1 patient in each group had recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Although a number of subsequent studies have confirmed the reduction of esophageal injury with the use of proactive esophageal cooling, this study is the only one to date to compare reactive cooling (via manual cold-water instillation) and proactive cooling (via a dedicated esophageal cooling device). Moreover, this is the first study to support the feasibility of using a dedicated cooling device for this purpose and provides the basis for further investigation.