Mohit K Turagam1, Steve Miller2, Sharan Prakash Sharma3, Punit Prakash4, Rakesh Gopinathannair3, Prajwala Lakkireddy5, Sanghamitra Mohanty6, Jie Cheng7, Andrea Natale6, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy8. 1. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 2. EP Rewards, Boca Raton, Florida. 3. Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park, Kansas. 4. Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas. 5. Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park, Kansas; Apollo School of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, India. 6. Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute, Austin, Texas. 7. Texas Heart Institute, Houston, Texas. 8. Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park, Kansas. Electronic address: dlakkireddy@kchrf.com.
Abstract
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.
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-FETPs 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.
Authors: Cheryl Teres; David Soto-Iglesias; Diego Penela; Giulio Falasconi; Daniel Viveros; Julia Meca-Santamaria; Aldo Bellido; Jose Alderete; Alfredo Chauca; Augusto Ordoñez; Julio Martí-Almor; Claudia Scherer; Alejandro Panaro; Julio Carballo; Óscar Cámara; Jose-Tomás Ortiz-Pérez; Antonio Berruezo Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 1.759
Authors: Lisa W M Leung; Abhay Bajpai; Zia Zuberi; Anthony Li; Mark Norman; Riyaz A Kaba; Zaki Akhtar; Banu Evranos; Hanney Gonna; Idris Harding; Manav Sohal; Nawaf Al-Subaie; John Louis-Auguste; Jamal Hayat; Mark M Gallagher Journal: Europace Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 5.214