Active clinical trials for "Atrial Flutter"

The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of 4 mm irrigated catheters with 2 mm irrigated catheters for ablation of typical flutter.It's a prospective randomised multicenter study.

The purpose of this study is to determine whether the Thermocool SF ® system is at least as effective and safe as regular 8mm catheters and irrigated tip catheters in the treatment of cavo-tricuspid isthmus dependent atrial flutter.

Ablation of the cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) in the right atrium is currently the therapy of choice for the treatment of typical atrial flutter (3,4). It is a curative approach and has a high success rate (5). It has been recognized that patients with typical atrial flutter often complain of atrial fibrillation (1,2). Current clinical and experimental studies confirm the close relationship between atrial flutter (AFL) and atrial fibrillation (AF) and raise a question, if both arrhythmias are different forms of a common electrical phenomenon with atrial fibrillation being the underlying clinical problem (6).

The investigators hypothesized that revealing the incidence of AF following RFA of the CTI and cryoablation PVI reduces incidence of AF following RFA of the CTI.

This randomized study compares two energy sources for the catheter based ablation of typical isthmus-dependent atrial flutter: The (standard) radiofrequency (RF) ablation technique and the cryo-ablation technique regarding the acute and long term efficacy and safety.

The purpose of the study is to look at the differences between people who have irregular heart beats coming from the upper chamber of the heart (atrial fibrillation) compared to those who do not have these irregular beats.

The administration of intravenous non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers such as diltiazem for patients presenting in atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response, without evidence of pre-excitation, are recommended first-line therapies by the American Heart Association.1 Hypotension warrants careful consideration in the treatment of atrial fibrillation with a rapid ventricular response. Hemodynamic stability is a continuum, however, and rate control is often vital, particularly in patients who are refractory to electrical cardioversion [or who have underlying conditions such that tachycardia is not well tolerated]. Diltiazem has been utilized in dosing such as 2.5 mg/min in those with decreased blood pressure and atrial fibrillation with elevated ventricular rate.2 Lim et al. in 2002 demonstrated the effectiveness of a slow infusion of diltiazem 2.5 mg/min to a maximum of 50 mg to control rate in supraventricular tachycardia. The study of the slow infusion of diltiazem has been limited to supraventricular tachycardia. No literature exists evaluating the efficacy of such a gradual infusion in atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, rhythms affecting 2.7 million to 6.1 million Americans.1,3 It can be reasoned that a gradual infusion of diltiazem will minimize side effects, predominantly hypotension, and perhaps even demonstrate efficacy in alleviating hypotension due to decreased stroke volume from excessive tachycardia. The proposed benefits of an infusion, as compared to a bolus, would allow for the termination of an infusion as soon as rate control is achieved thus limiting the potential for hypotension. With current evidence-based literature validating the superiority of non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers and questions surrounding present recommendations of weight based intravenous dosing, the authors suggest an inquiry into the utility of a gradual infusion of diltiazem for initial rate control in patients presenting with atrial fibrillation or flutter with or without hypotension related to excessive tachycardia. This is a prospective, randomized, double blind investigation to compare the effectiveness of standard IV (intravenous) push diltiazem at 0.25 mg/kg (to a maximum of 25 mg) over 2 minutes, with a potential repeat dose of 0.35 mg/kg if the initial dose is not effective versus a slow infusion of 50 mg of IV diltiazem diluted in 50 mL of 0.9% normal saline (NS) administered over 20 minutes. The investigators anticipate the data to be collected over the course of 2-3 years. These methods of diltiazem administration are already accepted practices at our institution and are consistent with current approved product labeling and professional judgment based upon clinical experience, and therefore the investigators do not foresee any additional risk to patients enrolled in our proposed study. In either treatment group, should hypotension or other clinical evidence of poor systemic perfusion, no additional IV diltiazem, or additional administration of a diltiazem infusion will be administered. The primary outcome measured will be the efficacy of treatment as defined by the obtainment of a heart rate of <110 beats/minute within 30 minutes of drug administration. Secondary outcomes evaluated will include the need for additional medications to achieve rate control including the need for repeat diltiazem bolus at 0.35 mg/kg, electrical cardioversion, admission, allergic reactions, and side effects including, but not limited to, systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg or bradycardia with heart rate less than 60 bpm.

This study will compare the reliability and timeliness in data transmission of the Abbott Confirm Rx™ loop recorder with the Medtronic Reveal LINQ™ loop recorder.

This research will investigate the PPG signal morphology related to physiological and non- physiological changes in arrhythmia-related heart rate as well as the performance of the PPG-based features previously developed within the framework of the Mini-Holter study to discriminate between several cardiac arrhythmias. To this end, clinical data will be recorded on patients by using a wrist-based PPG monitor simultaneously with 12-lead ECG and intracardiac electrogram (EGM) signals at the university hospital in Lausanne. Importantly, this study will remain purely observational as it will not change the diagnostic and therapeutic management of the included patients, nor will it interfere with the time course of the procedures. The aim of enHEART study is to validate on a larger database the ability of several previously developed PPG-based features to detect a variety of cardiac arrhythmias.

The Apple Heart Study (AHS) is a research study conducted to evaluate whether the Apple Heart Study App can use data collected on the Apple Watch to identify irregular heart rhythms, including those from potentially serious heart conditions such as atrial fibrillation. Up to 500,000 can participate in the study.