Heart rhythm · 2017
Risk of atrioesophageal fistula formation with contact force-sensing catheters.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Black-Maier Eric, Pokorney Sean D, Barnett Adam S, Zeitler Emily P, Sun Albert Y, Jackson Kevin P, Bahnson Tristram D, Daubert James P, Piccini Jonathan P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Atrioesophageal fistula formation is a rare but life-threatening complication of atrial fibrillation ablation. Contact force (CF)-sensing catheters improve procedural effectiveness. However, the impact of the implementation of CF-sensing technology on the risk of atrioesophageal fistula formation has not been explored.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the association between the use of CF-sensing catheters and atrioesophageal fistula development.
METHODS: We searched the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database for adverse event reports involving Food and Drug Administration-approved ablation catheters.
RESULTS: Among 2689 device reports, we identified 78 atrioesophageal fistula cases, 65 of which involved CF-sensing catheters and 13 non-CF-sensing catheters. The percentage of total reports involving atrioeosphageal fistula was 5.4% for CF-sensing catheters (65 of 1202) and 0.9% for non-CF-sensing catheters (13 of 1487) (P < .0001). Procedural details (CF and power settings) were not consistently reported. Esophageal temperature increases were detected in only 2.5% of cases (2 of 78). The mean time to presentation was 16 ± 9 days. Overall mortality was at least 56%, with patients who underwent surgical repair more likely to survive than those treated with stenting or no intervention.
CONCLUSION: Atrioesophageal fistula formation accounted for a much higher proportion of reported adverse events with CF-sensing catheters compared with non-CF-sensing catheters. Improved understanding of the relationship between power/force delivery and esophageal damage is needed to minimize the risk of atrioesophageal fistula formation.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the association between the use of CF-sensing catheters and atrioesophageal fistula development.
METHODS: We searched the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database for adverse event reports involving Food and Drug Administration-approved ablation catheters.
RESULTS: Among 2689 device reports, we identified 78 atrioesophageal fistula cases, 65 of which involved CF-sensing catheters and 13 non-CF-sensing catheters. The percentage of total reports involving atrioeosphageal fistula was 5.4% for CF-sensing catheters (65 of 1202) and 0.9% for non-CF-sensing catheters (13 of 1487) (P < .0001). Procedural details (CF and power settings) were not consistently reported. Esophageal temperature increases were detected in only 2.5% of cases (2 of 78). The mean time to presentation was 16 ± 9 days. Overall mortality was at least 56%, with patients who underwent surgical repair more likely to survive than those treated with stenting or no intervention.
CONCLUSION: Atrioesophageal fistula formation accounted for a much higher proportion of reported adverse events with CF-sensing catheters compared with non-CF-sensing catheters. Improved understanding of the relationship between power/force delivery and esophageal damage is needed to minimize the risk of atrioesophageal fistula formation.