ReviewHerzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie2026
[Catheter ablation-induced esophageal complications].
Review in Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Catheter ablation-induced atrioesophageal fistula (AEF) is one of the most devastating complications of catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation patients and is associated with extraordinarily high morbidity and mortality. Mucosal ulceration, erosion and erythema are milder variants of esophageal injury. Esophageal ulceration is an indicator for increased risk of progression to AEF. In case of clinical suspicion of esophageal perforation with or without fistula a computed tomography with contrast-medium is obligatory to exclude a cardiac fistula before performing esophageal endoscopy. Published strategies to prevent esophageal injury are the use of esophageal temperature probes, mechanical esophagus deviating devices and active esophageal cooling devices. Furthermore, many different strategies were tested to reduce the risk of esophageal injury by modifying ablation techniques and RF ablation parameters in order to limit ablation lesion depth at left atrial posterior wall.Confirmation of an AEF requires urgent cardiac surgery. A conservative or endoscopic approach without surgical intervention is associated with excessively high mortality in case of AEF according to current literature.In case of esophageal perforation without fistula different endoscopic strategies or conservative approaches in combination with a high vigilance for potential progression to fistula have been suggested.A timely, multi-disciplinary and consequently performed standard approach is crucial for a successful management of clinically relevant ablation-induced esophageal complications including esophageal perforation and AEF.The risk of AEF after atrial fibrillation ablation using pulsed field ablation (PFA) techniques seems to be extremely low. Histological esophageal alterations after PFA ablation at left atrial posterior wall have been recently described in an animal experimental study. However, despite the fact that no case of AEF after PFA has been published so far, every new PFA ablation catheter and PFA ablation protocol should also be tested for safety regarding potential esophageal injury.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41805995What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.