Active clinical trials for "Atrial Fibrillation"

In patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF), current clinical guidelines recommend ablation for rhythm control. While percutaneous ablation has good results in patients with paroxysmal AF, it is not clear which is the best technique in patients with persistent or long-standing persistent AF. Our group performed the first randomized study of thoracoscopic epicardial ablation vs. endocardial catheter ablation (FAST Trial), which showed better results for epicardial ablation but with a higher rate of complications. Hybrid epicardial and endocardial ablation strategies have recently been described sequentially, showing better results in patients with persistent AF, but 40% of patients are still refractory to ablation. Our study aims to compare the conventional strategy (catheter ablation) with partial electrical isolation of the left atrium endo-epicardially (pulmonary veins, posterior wall and left atrial appendage) in a single procedure in the group of patients most refractory to ablation. Likewise, using magnetic resonance imaging and echocardiography to analyze the atrial remodeling factors that can predict the success and failure of both therapies. Methodology: A 1:1 randomized clinical trial in patients with persistent and long-standing persistent AF in two groups: conventional ablation vs. partial endo-epicardial isolation. Prior to ablation, cardioversion will be performed and functionality and atrial size will be verified by echocardiography and delayed-enhancement magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) will detect the degree of fibrosis and atrial remodeling. During the ablation procedure, a continuous rhythm recording device will be implanted. Likewise, at three months the MRI will be repeated to detect post-ablation fibrosis. At six months the echocardiography will be performed to assess atrial function and size. Main Expected Results: The expected results include: 1. an improvement in the rate of patients with no atrial arrhythmias recurrence in patients undergoing endo-epicardial ablation; 2. a lower AF burden in patients undergoing endo-epicardial ablation who have had recurrence; 3. To know the degree of atrial fibrosis associated with the success/failure of each technique; 4. To know the degree of fibrosis that both techniques produce; 5. To know the degree of ventricular function associated with the success/failure of each technique; 6. To know the degree of potentially lost atrial function; 7. To Compare the safety of both techniques

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.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac severe arrhythmia globally and is associated with an increased risk of mortality and morbidity, with a loss of 6.0 million disability-adjusted life-years worldwide in 2017, conferring 0.24% of total disability-adjusted life-years globally. Due to the absence of knowledge of AF pathogenesis, currently, available therapies do not prevent AF onset or progression in 85% of patients. Despite the identification of novel druggable targets that are involved in the pathogenesis of AF, the translation of these findings to clinical drug studies is limited. Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is the most common type of secondary AF. The incidence of POAF after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is approximately 30%. About 16% of patients developed POAF in cardiac surgery even with the international guideline recommended perioperative beta-blocker intervention. Remimazolam is a newly approved benzodiazepine sedative indicated for the induction and maintenance of procedural sedation in adults, with significantly reduced sedation and recovery time. It was also found to be with an anti-inflammatory effect and therefore might have an impact on POAF since AF is closely related to the inflammatory response of myocardial tissue and inflammatory factors such as TNF-α. So, the RePAF trial intends to explore whether remimazolam application in induction and maintenance for general anesthesia during cardiac surgery can reduce the incidence of POAF in patients with CABG, and the effect on the postoperative plasma levels of inflammatory factors and stress factors.

The goal of the study is to compare efficacy and safety of the pulmonary artery denervation procedure combined with atrial fibrillation ablation versus atrial fibrillation ablation alone in patients with paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation and group 2 of the pulmonary hypertension

This study is aimed to evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Pulsed Field Ablation (PFA) in Patients with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation (PAF)

This proposal aims to determine the effects of tVNS on autonomic tone, atrial substrate and neuromodulators in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), investigate the chronic effects of optimal tVNS on AF burden in patients with paroxysmal AF over a 6-month period, compared with sham stimulation, and identify physiological and biochemical markers of response to chronic tVNS.

The study is a prospective, randomized, single-blind clinical trial aiming to compare two method in guidance of Vein of Marshall ethanol infusion (VOMEI), i.e., the conventional fluoroscopy-guided VOMEI and UNIVU-guided VOMEI.

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.

SLICE-LAMRT is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind trial that will be carried out in patients older than 18 years with atypical flutter suspected to be of left atrial origin. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the safety and superiority of a substrate-guided ablation procedure vs the conventional strategy guided by electrical activity. The composite primary endpoint is time to first episode of sustained atrial arrhythmia in the absence of pharmacological antiarrhythmic treatment or new ablation.

Comparison of propofol and sevoflurane as a primary anesthetic for cardiac ablation of atrial fibrillation