ReviewArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2025
Severe Esophageal Complications Following Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: Should We Still Be Concerned?
Review in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation has been increasingly employed as an effective strategy for rhythm control, leading to a reduction in arrhythmia burden, improved quality of life, and, in selected cases, decreased mortality. However, as an invasive procedure, it carries inherent risks. Severe esophageal complications-such as esophageal perforation or atrioesophageal fistula- though rare (with an incidence ranging from 0.025% to 0.113%), are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Multiple risk factors for esophageal injury have been identified, including both patient-related and procedure-related characteristics. To mitigate these risks during radiofrequency (RF) ablation, several preventive measures have been adopted, including the use of contact force catheters, high-power short-duration energy applications, and protective strategies such as esophageal temperature monitoring, displacement devices, and cooling techniques. Deep esophageal lesions detected through surveillance endoscopy are considered potential precursors to more serious complications and, therefore, warrant close attention. Enhanced monitoring of patients with such lesions may be crucial for enabling early diagnosis and timely intervention to prevent the progression to more severe complications. While pulsed field ablation therapy, which poses a lower risk to the esophagus and other surrounding structures, is not yet widely available, the implementation of robust monitoring strategies can significantly improve clinical outcomes and enhance patient safety in the context of RF AF ablation.
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.