Author + information
- Received April 9, 2019
- Revision received July 17, 2019
- Accepted July 18, 2019
- Published online October 2, 2019.
- Mohit K. Turagam, MDa,
- Steve Miller, RNb,
- Sharan Prakash Sharma, MDc,
- Punit Prakash, PhDd,
- Rakesh Gopinathannair, MDc,
- Prajwala Lakkireddyc,e,
- Sanghamitra Mohanty, MDf,
- Jie Cheng, MDg,
- Andrea Natale, MDf and
- Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MDc,∗ ()
- aIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
- bEP Rewards, Boca Raton, Florida
- cKansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park, Kansas
- dKansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas
- eApollo School of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, India
- fTexas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute, Austin, Texas
- gTexas Heart Institute, Houston, Texas
- ↵∗Address for correspondence:
Dr. Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park Regional Medical Center, HCA MidWest, Overland Park, Kansas 66221.
Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences in transient thermal response (TTR) among various types of commercial esophageal temperature probes (ETPs) in the United States in an experimental model.
Background There is little information regarding the variation in TTR among various commercial ETPs that are approved for atrial fibrillation ablation.
Methods We compared various thermodynamic characteristics including, mean thermal time constant (τ), time to rise 1°C (T1°C), time to peak temperature (Tpeak), and decay time among 22 different ETPs. Each probe was submerged in a constant-temperature water bath maintained at 37 ± 0.5°C and then quickly (<0.5 s) submerged into another water bath at 45 ± 0.5°C. The experiments were repeated 3 times with each probe. TTR properties were compared on the basis of probe size, design, and number of sensors.
Results The τ was significantly higher with the larger 24- and 18-F ETPs compared with the smaller 9-F ETPs. Compared with the 18-F probe, T1°C (11.9 s vs. 5 s), Tpeak (40.3 s vs. 14.4 s), and Tdecay (92.4 s vs. 32.4 s) was shorter with the 9-F ETPs. Solid-shaft ETPs had shorter τ (8.6 s vs. 20.5 s), T1°C (4.4 s vs. 10.1 s) and Tpeak (13.5 s vs. 32.5 s) compared with acoustascopes. Multisensor ETPs had shorter τs (3.9 s vs. 9.1 s), T1°C (2.3 s vs. 5 s), and Tpeak (6.2 s vs. 14.4 s) compared with single-sensor ETPs.
Conclusions There is a significant variation in TTR among the various commercially available ETPs. The use of certain ETPs might result in underestimation of luminal esophageal temperature, which can potentially lead to adverse events.
- atrial fibrillation
- esophageal injury
- esophageal temperature monitoring
- esophageal temperature probe
- pulmonary vein isolation
All authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.
The authors attest they are in compliance with human studies committees and animal welfare regulations of the authors’ institutions and Food and Drug Administration guidelines, including patient consent where appropriate. For more information, visit the JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology author instructions page.
- Received April 9, 2019.
- Revision received July 17, 2019.
- Accepted July 18, 2019.
- 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation
This article requires a subscription or purchase to view the full text. If you are a subscriber or member, click Login or the Subscribe link (top menu above) to access this article.