Pulsed‐field ablation does not induce esophageal and periesophageal injury—A new esophageal safety paradigm in catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation

Abstract Introduction Esophageal injury is one of the most serious complications of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with thermic energy sources. Better tissue selectivity of primarily non‐thermic pulsed field ablation (PFA) may eliminate collateral injury, particularly the risk of atrio‐esophageal fistula (AEF). Objective To compare the incidence of any (peri)‐esophageal injury following PVI using PFA to thermic energy sources. Methods Using endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound, and electrogastrography before and after PVI, esophageal and periesophageal injury (mucosal lesions, food retention, periesophageal edema, or vagal nerve injury) were assessed following PFA and radiofrequency (RF)‐ or cryoballoon (CB)‐PVI. Results Between December 2022 and February 2023, 20 patients (67 ± 10 years, 53% male) undergoing PFA (Farapulse, Boston Scientific) for atrial fibrillation (AF) were studied and compared with a previous cohort of 57 patients who underwent thermic PVI (CB: n = 33; RF: n = 24). Following PFA‐PVI, none of the patients had mucosal lesions, food retention, or ablation‐induced vagal nerve injury; four patients showed periesophageal edema. Following thermic ablation, 33/57 patients (58%) showed esophageal and/or periesophageal injury (CB: 21/33 [64%], RF: 12/24 [50%]), in detail 4/57 mucosal lesions, 18/57 food retention, 17/57 vagal nerve injury, and 20/52 edema. Midterm success rates were similar for all energy sources. Conclusion In contrast to thermic ablation tools, PFA is not associated with relevant esophageal and periesophageal injury, and might, therefore, reduce or eliminate the risk of potentially lethal AEF in interventional treatment of AF. The etiology of ablation‐induced periesophageal edema is unknown but has not been shown to be related to lesion progression.