PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Lazarus, Catherine AU - Sherman, Jacob AU - Putzel, Natalie AU - Zagrodzky, William AU - Sharkoski, Tiffany AU - Ro, Alex AU - Nazari, Jose AU - Fisher, Westby AU - Kulstad, Erik AU - Metzl, Mark TI - Reduced Continuity Index with Proactive Esophageal Cooling Compared to Luminal Temperature Monitoring During Radiofrequency Ablation AID - 10.1101/2024.04.09.24305586 DP - 2024 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2024.04.09.24305586 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/12/2024.04.09.24305586.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/12/2024.04.09.24305586.full AB - Background Proactive esophageal cooling is FDA cleared to reduce the likelihood of esophageal injury during radiofrequency ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Long-term follow-up data have also shown improved freedom from arrhythmia with proactive esophageal cooling compared to luminal esophageal temperature (LET) monitoring during pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). One hypothesized mechanism is improved lesion contiguity (as measured by the Continuity Index) with the use of cooling. We aimed to compare the Continuity Index of PVI cases using proactive esophageal cooling to those using LET monitoring.Methods Continuity Index was calculated for PVI cases at two different hospitals within the same health system using a slightly modified Continuity Index to facilitate both real-time calculation during observation of PVI cases and retrospective determination from recorded cases. The results were then compared between proactively cooled cases and those using LET monitoring.Results Continuity Indices for a total of 101 cases were obtained; 77 cases using proactive esophageal cooling and 24 cases using traditional LET monitoring. With proactive esophageal cooling, the average Continuity Index was 2.7 (1.3 on the left pulmonary vein, and 1.5 on the right pulmonary vein). With LET monitoring, the average Continuity Index was 27.3 (14.3 on the left, and 12.9 on the right), for a difference of 24.6 (p < 0.001).Conclusion Proactive esophageal cooling during PVI is associated with significantly improved lesion contiguity when compared to LET monitoring. This finding may offer a mechanism for the greater freedom from arrhythmia seen with proactive cooling in long-term follow-up.Competing Interest StatementConflict of Interest: Catherine Lazarus, Jacob Sherman, Natalie Putzel, William Zagrodzky have interned with Attune Medical; Tiffany Sharkoski has employment with Attune Medical; Erik Kulstad has equity and employment in Attune Medical and Mark Metzl has consulted for Abbott, Biosense Webster, Attune Medical, Medtronic, Sanofi Aventis and Phillips. Alex Ro, Jose Nazari and Westby Fisher have no disclosures.Funding StatementFunding: Portions of the work reported in this publication were supported by the National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (Bethesda, MD) under Award Number R44HL158375 (the content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.Not ApplicableThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:AdvarraI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.Not ApplicableI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Not ApplicableI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.Not ApplicableData available from corresponding author upon request.