Kato Haruta, Naruse Yoshihisa, Kaneko Yutaro, Narumi Taro, Sano Makoto, Maekawa Yuichiro
Division of Cardiology Internal Medicine III, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine Hamamatsu Japan.
J Arrhythm. 2025 Jun 30;41(4):e70121. doi: 10.1002/joa3.70121. eCollection 2025 Aug.
Laser balloon-based pulmonary vein isolation is an established therapeutic option for atrial fibrillation. However, elevated esophageal temperature is sometimes problematic and increases the risk of collateral esophageal damage. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different power settings at sites where sudden esophageal temperature increases were documented.
We enrolled 50 ablation sites in 11 patients where the esophageal temperature reached 39°C within 5 s after ablation. We applied four power settings (12, 10, 8.5, and 5.5 W), and ablation was immediately stopped when the esophageal temperature reached 39°C. Efficacy outcomes included ablation time and total energy, calculated as the product of power and ablation time. Safety outcomes included maximal esophageal temperature and area under the temperature-time curve above 39°C.
Although ablation time was the longest in the 5.5 W group (12 W: 3.1 ± 2.1 s, 10 W: 3.6 ± 2.7 s, 8.5 W: 4.7 ± 3.9 s, 5.5 W: 8.0 ± 7.2 s; < 0.001), total energy did not differ among the four groups (40 ± 35, 35 ± 26, 38 ± 31, and 40 ± 39 J, respectively; = 0.864). There were no significant differences in maximal esophageal temperature (40.2 ± 1.7, 40.3 ± 1.9, 40.1 ± 1.5, and 39.8 ± 1.1°C, respectively; = 0.532) or the area under the temperature-time curve above 39°C (16 ± 49, 18 ± 57, 12 ± 29, and 7 ± 14°C・, respectively; = 0.564) among the four groups.
A high-power, short-duration strategy might allow comparable energy application without excessive esophageal collateral damage, as estimated by the esophageal temperature. However, further research using gastrointestinal endoscopy to evaluate esophageal injury is needed to confirm our results.
基于激光球囊的肺静脉隔离术是心房颤动的一种既定治疗选择。然而,食管温度升高有时会带来问题,并增加食管旁损伤的风险。本研究旨在评估在记录到食管温度突然升高的部位采用不同功率设置的疗效和安全性。
我们纳入了11例患者的50个消融部位,这些部位在消融后5秒内食管温度达到39°C。我们应用了四种功率设置(12、10、8.5和5.5W),当食管温度达到39°C时立即停止消融。疗效指标包括消融时间和总能量,总能量计算为功率与消融时间的乘积。安全性指标包括最高食管温度以及温度 - 时间曲线在39°C以上的面积。
虽然5.5W组的消融时间最长(12W组:3.1±2.1秒,10W组:3.6±2.7秒,8.5W组:4.7±3.9秒,5.5W组:8.0±7.2秒;<0.001),但四组之间的总能量无差异(分别为40±35、35±26、38±31和40±39焦耳;=0.864)。四组之间的最高食管温度(分别为40.2±1.7、40.3±1.9、40.1±1.5和39.8±1.1°C;=0.532)或温度 - 时间曲线在39°C以上的面积(分别为16±49、18±57、12±29和7±14°C·;=0.564)均无显著差异。
如通过食管温度所估计的那样,高功率、短持续时间策略可能在不造成过度食管旁损伤的情况下实现相当的能量应用。然而,需要进一步采用胃肠内镜检查来评估食管损伤的研究以证实我们的结果。