Feasibility and Safety of Using an Esophageal Protective System to Eliminate Esophageal Thermal Injury: Implications on Atrial‐Esophageal Fistula Following AF Ablation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) requires energy delivery in close proximity to the esophagus (Eso) which has accounted for the LA-Eso fistula, a rare but life-threatening complication. PURPOSE: We evaluated an Eso cooling system to protect the Eso during RF ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: An "in vitro" heart-Eso preparation was initially used to test a temperature-controlled fluid-circulating system (EPSac [esophageal protective system]-RossHart Technologies Inc.) and an expandable compliant Eso sac during cardiac RF delivery (4 mm tip, perpendicular to the heart, 15 g pressure) at 25, 35, and 45 W, 100 +/- 5 Omega for 30 seconds with the EPSac at 25, 15, 10, and 5 degrees C. All cardiac lesions were transmural. Eso thermal injury could only be avoided with the EPSac at 10 and 5 degrees C. The system was then tested in 6 closed chest dogs, each receiving 12 RFs (LA aiming at the Eso) for 30 seconds: without EPSac (control) at 35 W (1 dog); at 45 W with EPSac at 25 degrees C (1 dog), 10 degrees C (2 dogs), and 5 degrees C (2 dogs). The EPSac volume was intentionally increased to displace the Eso toward the LA (2 dogs 5 and 10 degrees C). Eso injured control and EPSac at 25 degrees C; Eso spared EPSac at 5 and 10 degrees C, without Eso displacement. Shallow external Eso injury noted when intentionally displacing the Eso toward the LA. CONCLUSIONS: The EPSac spares the Eso from collateral thermal injury. It requires circulating fluid at 5 or 10 degrees C and a compliant sac to avoid displacement of the Eso. Its safety and efficacy remain to be demonstrated in patients undergoing AF ablation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".