ArticleHeart rhythm O22023
Safety of an esophageal deviator for atrial fibrillation catheter ablation.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brazilian Atrial Fibrillation Guidelines - 2025.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025Article
- Minimizing Atrioesophageal Fistula Risk After AF Ablation: Risk Factors, Prevention, and Emerging Mini-Thermal Technology.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Esophageal thermal injury is a complication of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, and it can be avoided by esophageal deviation during left atrial posterior wall radiofrequency catheter ablation. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the safety of a nitinol-based mechanical esophageal displacement device (MEDD) and its performance. Methods: This preclinical safety study was conducted on 20 pigs, with 10 undergoing radiofrequency AF ablation using the MEDD and 10 serving as a control group under anticoagulation but without radiofrequency application. Esophageal traumatic injuries were classified from 0 to 4 and were grouped as absent (grade 0), minor (grade 1 or 2), moderate (grade 3), or major risk lesions (grade 4) by anatomopathological study. Grades 1 and 2 were considered acceptable. Fluoroscopy was used to measure displacement. Results: Five (25%) pigs developed traumatic lesions, 4 with grade 1 and 1 with grade 2 (2-mm superficial ulcer). There was no difference in lesion occurrence between the radiofrequency and control groups (30% and 20%, respectively; Conclusion: In pigs, the MEDD demonstrated safety in relation to esophageal tissue, and successful deviation. Esophageal traumatic injuries were acceptable, but improper manipulation led to pharyngeal lesion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.