Active clinical trials for "Atrial Flutter"

Typical atrial flutter ablation involving forming a line of block across the cavotricuspid isthmus in the right atrium has become a commonly performed procedure and is considered a class I indicated procedure for patients who wish to pursue maintenance of sinus rhythm. The ablation generally involves 2-3 catheters and is typically performed through the femoral vein(s). After the ablation procedure, the patient is placed on bed rest for 4 hours, and typically discharged home the same day on oral anticoagulation. Catheter technology has improved over the past several years allowing for more rapid ablation with shorter procedure times. Ultrasound has also become more routinely used when obtaining venous access for the patient. To date, ablation of typical atrial flutter through the left or right arm has not been reported. Diagnostic electrophysiology studies have been performed through the arm and AV node ablation has also been reported from the cephalic, internal jugular, axillary and subclavian veins. The potential benefits include shorter recovery time, reduced risk of retroperitoneal bleed, and the avoidance of access complications from the groin. This study aims to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of performing typical atrial flutter ablation through the arm. Specifically, the study will aim to: Compare the recovery time immediately after the procedure using upper extremity access compared to the standard approach. Compare the success rate of patients that undergo ablation of typical atrial flutter through the upper extremity venous system (experimental approach) to the standard approach (i.e., through the femoral vein(s). Success will be defined as ablation that leads to evidence for bidirectional block across the right atrial cavotricuspid isthmus. Establish what the potential complications are from performing typical atrial flutter through the left or right arm. The left arm will be the preferred site for access because of less tortuosity to reach the heart. If one side cannot be accessed the alternate arm will be used, but will be left to the discretion of the operator. The operator will have the discretion to switch to a femoral approach at any time. Compare the complication rates of the experimental approach evaluated by the inability to access the vein, and other complications (e.g., bleeding, vein thrombosis, heart perforation) from accessing the vein in the arm to the complication rates of the standard approach. Compare long term (i.e., 1 month and 1 year) success of the experimental approach vs. the standard approach as assessed by maintenance of normal sinus rhythm, without recurrent typical right atrial flutter with in person visits and phone call or chart evaluations. Compare pain severity of the insertion site between the experimental and standard approaches.

Atrial fibrillation is the most common heart rhythm disorder (arrhythmia) worldwide. Nearly 40 million people are affected by atrial fibrillation worldwide, and this number is expected to increase by over 50% by 2050. Atrial fibrillation can cause strokes, heart attacks, heart failure, poor quality of life and even death. Almost half a million deaths worldwide are expected to be related to atrial fibrillation by 2050, and many billions of dollars are spent on atrial fibrillation related healthcare in North America every year. We believe health outcomes for patients with atrial fibrillation, and healthcare costs associated with treating atrial fibrillation could be improved by optimizing existing treatments for atrial fibrillation and maximizing the likelihood of restoring normal heart rhythm. This allows them to benefit from lower stroke risk, better heart function, fewer symptoms and increased quality of life. Restoring normal sinus rhythm earlier prevents atrial fibrillation from causing permanent structural damage to the heart that in turn, makes atrial fibrillation intractable. Furthermore, patients in whom initial attempts to control atrial fibrillation are unsuccessful frequently require more medications or invasive catheter ablation procedures which are costly and carry substantial risk. Electrical cardioversion is the main way physicians restore normal heart rhythm. In this procedure, the heart is "shocked" back into normal rhythm using two electrodes on the chest. Done correctly, this procedure is safe and effective. Many things are known about electrical cardioversion, for example, the best type and amount of electricity to use. What we don't know is the best position of the electrodes on the chest and whether applying direct, physical pressure to the electrodes makes cardioversion more successful. Our prior research suggests that improving positioning and applying pressure may improve cardioversion, but this finding needs to be verified with a rigorous, dedicated trial. This study will demonstrate whether front-to-back, or front-to-side placement of the electrodes is more effective for electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. We will also demonstrate whether manually applying pressure to the electrodes makes cardioversion more effective. Should our trial demonstrate a benefit for these techniques, we expect them to be universally applied around the world. Because hundreds of thousands of cardioversions are done each year, even small increases in cardioversion success means thousands fewer patients progress to needing more medications or invasive procedures to manage their atrial fibrillation. We will study consenting adults presenting for non-urgent cardioversion of their atrial fibrillation. After explaining the study to participants and gaining their consent, we will randomly assign them to front-to-side or front-to-back electrode placement. Patients who remain in atrial fibrillation after the first shock will randomly receive either manual pressure or not. We will compare the success of cardioversion for front-side versus front-back electrode placement, and for manual pressure versus none. We will evaluate success by using electrocardiograms to assess for restoration of the heart rhythm back to normal. We hypothesize that anterolateral electrode positioning is superior to anteroposterior electrode positioning. We also hypothesize that manual pressure is effective relative to none, when applied in patients who have had one unsuccessful shock already.

To compare the relative efficacy for calcium pre-treatment in decreasing incidence of drug induced hypotension after diltiazem administration for treatment of AFF with RVR. Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference between groups in incidence of hypotension after pretreatment with calcium prior to bolus of diltiazem.

Catheter ablation of the cavo-tricuspid isthmus (CTI) is the curative first-line therapy for typical atrial flutter. Currently, two approaches are used in clinical practice. In contrast to the conventional linear ablation approach, the Maximum voltage-guided (MVG) strategy aims to limit ablation to high voltage areas (HVAs) representing the detectable correlate of relevant conducting bundles. Data from registries show that the MVG technique is sufficient to reach comparable clinical outcome with significantly shorter ablation duration when compared to the conventional linear strategy. Despite growing evidence, however, data from properly powered prospective randomized trials are lacking and the linear approach still remains standard. In addition, data on radiation exposure are controversial. As a substrate-based approach, the MVG strategy requires detailed mapping and signal analysis for identification of the individual architecture and exactly targeted energy application. However, the spatial mapping resolution of large tip catheters is limited. The use of the MicroFidelity catheter technology (IntellaMiFi) with high resolution mini-electrodes at the 8 mm catheter tip can be expected to further improve the feasibility of a voltage-guided approach. In addition, the MVG approach theoretically may encompass an increased risk for clinically inapparent reconduction. A prospective study with predefined invasive re-evaluation of persistent CTI block is needed to further evaluate this issue. Objective of this prospective randomized study is evaluate the performance of the micro-sensor technology for zero-fluoroscopy voltage-guided ablation of typical atrial flutter (AFL) compared with a population undergoing conventional linear ablation including a predefined invasive re-evaluation of persistent CTI block in addition to clinical follow-up. The study has been approved by the responsible ethics committee.

Unicenter, 1:1 randomized, open-labelled clinical trial comparing left atrial flutter ablation using high density mapping or strict lineal ablation. Main outcome: arrhythmia recurrences over 1 year follow-up with daily 1-lead 30 seconds ECG samples.

The goal of this study is to understand the effects of early mobilization after a Z stitch procedure in patients undergoing certain heart-related treatments. We want to find out if allowing patients to move around sooner after their procedure can improve their satisfaction and potentially lead to earlier discharge from the hospital. Type of Study: Clinical Trial Participant Population/Health Conditions: Patients aged 18-99 undergoing specific heart procedures such as atrial fibrillation treatment, atrial flutter treatment, supraventricular tachycardia treatment, diagnostic electrophysiology studies, AV node ablation, or Watchman device placement. Main Questions: Does early mobilization (getting up and moving around sooner) after the Z stitch procedure improve patient satisfaction? Participants will be divided into two groups, and researchers will compare those who have one hour of bedrest with those who have four hours of bedrest after the Z stitch procedure. We want to see if the shorter bedrest period leads to higher patient satisfaction.

A prospective, single-arm, multi-center study designed to collect real world safety and performance data of the Adagio Medical iCLAS Cryoablation System in the treatment of drug refractory, recurrent, symptomatic, Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation (PAF), Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (PsAF), and Atrial Flutter (AFL).

The aim of cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) dependent flutter ablation is the bidirectional conduction block of CTI. The probability of achieving a permanent bidirectional block at the CTI depends, mainly, on the ablation energy applied and the quality of the obtained lesion. Among the factors that determine the lesion's quality those which have the bigger impact are catheter stability, contact force, power and duration of energy application and the temperature reached at depth.This is a multicenter 1:1 randomized, blinded (open for the operator) study. Two CTI ablation strategies are compared: 1) conventional treatment branch which consists of individual 25-40 W applications of unlimited duration until achieving in each application the minimum value of one of the currently accepted and used lesion markers (Ablation Index >500 at the anterior half of the CTI and >400 at the posterior half with de CARTO 3 system; 2) experimental treatment branch consistent of CTI block using individual high power (90W) short duration (4 seconds) point-by-point applications. The main objective of this study is assessing the non-inferiority of the efficacy and safety of high-power short-duration ablation in patients undergoing typical atrial flutter ablation. Secondary objectives include the comparison of total radiofrequency time, number of applications, number of steam pops, percentage of reconnections, procedure duration, pain during the procedure and time to atrial flutter recurrence.

The AFFELECT -study compares two types of treatment modalities for acute atrial fibrillation or flutter for patients in whom rhythm control is desirable. The main purpose is to observe if these arrhythmias can be safely treated electively (within 5-9 days). All patients are recruited in the emergency department. Patients must be in good clinical condition so that they can be discharged regardless to which treatment modality is randomly selected to them. Patients randomized to conventional care are treated conventionally which means acute rhythm control is applied by electrical or medical cardioversion in the emergency department (within 48 hours of onset of the arrhythmia). Patients randomized to elective care are discharged immediately after adequate temporary rhythm control is assured. All patients will visit a cardiologist out-patient clinic at approximately one week after the emergency room visit. Patients randomized to elective treatment and still in atrial fibrillation or in atrial flutter will be restored to sinus rhythm by electrical or medical cardioversion at the out-patient clinic. Cardiovascular status and treatment options are evaluated for all patients. Anticoagulation is managed according existing guidelines for all patients. Due to possibility of delayed cardioversion in the interventional group (elective care group), all patients receive anticoagulation before the out-patient clinic despite their thromboembolic risk. All patients who have not received adequate anticoagulation for three weeks prior to the delayed cardioversion will undergo a transesophageal cardiac ultrasound to ensure they are not in excess risk for thromboembolic events. Patients randomized to elective treatment have the possibility to opt-out and undergo acute cardioversion if their symptoms are unmanageable during the first week before the out-patient clinical. All patients are monitored for their symptoms by a standardized quality-of-life questionnaire and for possibly required acute medical interventions during the first week and one month after the out-patient clinic. After one month, all patients undergo an electrocardiography (ECG) to ensure the maintenance of normal rhythm in both treatment groups. After the months follow-up all patients are subsequently monitored for a maximum of five years for need of medical interventions due to atrial fibrillation of atrial flutter. New antiarrhythmics such as flecainide are not prescribed during the first month.

The optimal antithrombotic management in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) is unknown. AF patients are treated with oral anticoagulation (OAC) to prevent ischemic stroke and systemic embolism and patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are treated with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), i.e. aspirin plus P2Y12 inhibitor, to prevent stent thrombosis (ST) and myocardial infarction (MI). Patients with AF undergoing PCI were traditionally treated with triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT, i.e. OAC plus aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor) to prevent ischemic complications. However, TAT doubles or even triples the risk of major bleeding complications. More recently, several clinical studies demonstrated that omitting aspirin, a strategy known as dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) is safer compared to TAT with comparable efficacy. However, pooled evidence from recent meta-analyses suggests that patients treated with DAT are at increased risk of MI and ST. Insights from the AUGUSTUS trial showed that aspirin added to OAC and clopidogrel for 30 days, but not thereafter, resulted in fewer severe ischemic events. This finding emphasizes the relevance of early aspirin administration on ischemic benefit, also reflected in the current ESC guideline. However, because we consider the bleeding risk of TAT unacceptably high, we propose to use a short course of DAPT (omitting OAC for 1 month). There is evidence from the BRIDGE study that a short period of omitting OAC is safe in patients with AF. In this study, these patients are treated with DAPT, which also prevents stroke, albeit not as effective as OAC. This temporary interruption of OAC will allow aspirin treatment in the first month post-PCI where the risk of both bleeding and stent thrombosis is greatest. The WOEST 3 trial is a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial investigating the safety and efficacy of one month DAPT compared to guideline-directed therapy consisting of OAC and P2Y12 inhibitor combined with aspirin up to 30 days. We hypothesise that the use of short course DAPT is superior in bleeding and non-inferior in preventing ischemic events. The primary safety endpoint is major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding as defined by the ISTH at 6 weeks after PCI. The primary efficacy endpoint is a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or stent thrombosis at 6 weeks after PCI.