Thermal injury to the oesophagus is an important cause of life-threatening complication after ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). Thermal protection of the oesophageal lumen by infusing cold liquid reduces thermal injury to a limited extent. We tested the ability of a more powerful method of oesophageal temperature control to reduce the incidence of thermal injury. A single-centre, prospective, double-blinded randomized trial was used to investigate the ability of the ensoETM device to protect the oesophagus from thermal injury. This device was compared in a 1:1 randomization with a control group of standard practice utilizing a single-point temperature probe. In the protected group, the device maintained the luminal temperature at 4°C during radiofrequency (RF) ablation for AF under general anaesthesia. Endoscopic examination was performed at 7 days post-ablation and oesophageal injury was scored. The patient and the endoscopist were blinded to the randomization. We recruited 188 patients, of whom 120 underwent endoscopy. Thermal injury to the mucosa was significantly more common in the control group than in those receiving oesophageal protection (12/60 vs. 2/60; P = 0.008), with a trend toward reduction in gastroparesis (6/60 vs. 2/60, P = 0.27). There was no difference between groups in the duration of RF or in the force applied (P value range= 0.2–0.9). Procedure duration and fluoroscopy duration were similar (P = 0.97, P = 0.91, respectively). Thermal protection of the oesophagus significantly reduces ablation-related thermal injury compared with standard care. This method of oesophageal protection is safe and does not compromise the efficacy or efficiency of the ablation procedure.

Atrioesophageal fistula is a life-threatening complication of ablation treatment for atrial fibrillation. Methods to reduce the risk of esophageal injury have evolved over the last decade, and diagnosis of this complication remains difficult and therefore challenging to treat in a timely manner. Delayed diagnosis leads to treatment occurring in the context of a critically ill patient, contributing to the poor prognosis associated with this complication. The associated mortality risk can be as high as 70%. Recent important advances in preventative techniques are explored in this review.

Arrhythmias cause disability and an increased risk of premature death in the general population but far more so in patients with renal failure. The association between the cardiac and renal systems is complex and derives in part from common causality of renal and myocardial injury from conditions including hypertension and diabetes. In many cases, there is a causal relationship, with renal dysfunction promoting arrhythmias and arrhythmias exacerbating renal dysfunction. In this review, the authors expand on the challenges faced by cardiologists in treating common and uncommon arrhythmias in patients with renal failure using pharmacological interventions, ablation and cardiac implantable device therapies. They explore the most important interactions between heart rhythm disorders and renal dysfunction while evaluating the ways in which the coexistence of renal dysfunction and cardiac arrhythmia influences the management of both.

Introduction: Research evidence has shown that catheter ablation is a safe and superior treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) compared to medical therapy, but real‐world practice has been slow to adopt an early interventional approach. This study aims to determine the cost effectiveness of catheter ablation compared to medical therapy from the perspective of the United Kingdom.Methods: A patient‐level Markov health‐state transition model was used to conduct a cost‐utility analysis. The population included patients previously treated for AF with medical therapy, including those with heart failure (HF), simulated over a lifetime horizon. Data sources included published literature on utilization and cardiovascular event rates in real world patients, a systematic literature review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials for AF recurrence, and publicly available government data/reports on costs.Results: Catheter ablation resulted in a favorable incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £8614 per additional quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained when compared to medical therapy. More patients in the medical therapy group failed rhythm control at any point compared to catheter ablation (72% vs. 24%) and at a faster rate (median time to treatment failure: 3.8 vs. 10 years). Additionally, catheter ablation was estimated to be more cost‐effective in patients with AF and HF (ICER = £6438) and remained cost‐effective over all tested time horizons (10, 15, and 20 years), with the ICER ranging from £9047–£15 737 per QALY gained.Conclusion: Catheter ablation is a cost‐effective treatment for atrial fibrillation, compared to medical therapy, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is performed using non-laser and laser techniques with overall high efficacy and safety. Variation in outcomes between the two approaches does exist with limited comparative evidence in the literature. We sought to compare non-laser and laser TLE in a meta-analysis. We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CENTRAL databases for TLE studies published between 1991 and 2021. From the included 68 studies, safety and efficacy data were carefully evaluated and extracted. Aggregated cases of outcomes were used to calculate odds ratio (OR), and pooled rates were synthesized from eligible studies to compare non-laser and laser techniques. Subgroup comparison of rotational tool and laser extraction was also performed. Non-laser in comparison with laser had lower procedural mortality (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.1%, P < 0.01), major complications (pooled rate 0.7% vs. 1.7%, P < 0.01), and superior vena cava (SVC) injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001), with higher complete success (pooled rate 96.5% vs. 93.8%, P < 0.01). Non-laser comparatively to laser was more likely to achieve clinical [OR 2.16 (1.77–2.63), P < 0.01] and complete [OR 1.87 (1.69–2.08), P < 0.01] success, with a lower procedural mortality risk [OR 1.6 (1.02–2.5), P < 0.05]. In the subgroup analysis, rotational tool compared with laser achieved greater complete success (pooled rate 97.4% vs. 95%, P < 0.01) with lower SVC injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.01). Non-laser TLE is associated with a better safety and efficacy profile when compared with laser methods. There is a greater risk of SVC injury associated with laser sheath extraction.

The use of remanufactured single-use devices (SUDs), including cardiac electrophysiology catheters, has become established in the USA and other health care systems but without much published scientific evaluation on the relative safety or efficacy of these devices. In the United Kingdom (UK), the use of remanufactured SUDs has not been routine. We performed a structured evaluation of the safety and efficacy of a remanufactured circular mapping catheter (Stryker® remanufactured Lasso NAV 2515) during its introduction in our centre.