Active clinical trials for "Atrial Fibrillation"

Anticoagulant treatment for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) associated with cerebral infarction/ TIA is one of the recognized treatment of stroke prevention. The ACC/AHA and national guidelines for the management of anticoagulation recommend that most of AF patients with cerebral infarction or TIA should be administrated anticoagulant therapy within 14 days of symptom onset, while European guidelines recommend that the timing of the initiation of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for AF patients with cerebral infarction or TIA is association with stroke severity in light of the "1-3-6-12" principle. However, there are still many problems about the use of NOACs in ischemic stroke with AF. for example, it is unclear what time to begin NOACs as to difference in stroke severity, ages, comorbidity with hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, liver and kidney dysfunction and bleeding risks. Thus, the timing of the initiation of NOACs is yet to be further studied. Current urgent need is to develop a guideline-based specific regimen in which the benefit-risk factors are further balanced with a combination of NHISS, CHA2DS2-VASC and HAS-BLED score. Rivaroxaban, a direct coagulation factor Ⅹa inhibitor, blocks the formation of the clot. ROCKET-AF study has shown that the efficacy of rivaroxaban is not inferior to that of warfarin in AF patients on stroke prevention, and rivaroxaban has a significantly decreased bleeding risk compared with warfarin. Recent study indicates that early administration with rivaroxaban for AF patients within 14 days of onset does not significantly increase hemorrhagic transformation. However, the relevant clinical data of the efficacy and safety of early initiation of rivaroxaban in AF patients with cerebral infarction or TIA are lacking in China. Therefore, the investigators conduct a multicenter cohort study to investigate the safety of early rivaroxaban in the AF patient with cerebral infarction or TIA within 12 days of onset.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia with a prevalence ranging from 5% over 60 years old to 17% after 85 years old. Besides hemodynamical compromises and occurrence of heart failure, stroke remains the most feared complication related to AF with a risk increased by 5-fold. Catheter ablation with the aim of pulmonary veins isolation (PVI) has evolved as a standardized treatment option in paroxysmal AF (PAF), supported by the current guidelines. However, due to advanced electrical and structural remodeling, catheter ablation for persistent AF is rather disappointing with a limited success rate, at least after a single procedure. Due to these shortcomings, minimally invasive thoracoscopic surgical techniques have gained attention with good results in persistent AF patients. Comparison between thoracoscopic surgical ablation and catheter ablation have shown that surgical ablation was associated with higher success rates, less redo procedures but also with higher complication rates. The main issue with surgical ablation is the difficulty to check the ablation lines and pulmonary vein isolation, which are the cornerstones for achieving good long-term results. Hybrid therapy, combining both epicardial surgical and endocardial catheter ablation is expected to be the most effective technique. It would avoid incomplete lesions or incomplete pulmonary vein isolation, and would provide complete lesion set. Hybrid therapy of AF has been compared with mini-invasive surgical ablation of AF, showing a significant higher rate of sinus rhythm achievement in the hybrid therapy group. However, no comparative clinical trials data are currently available in the setting of persistent AF comparing hybrid ablation and conventional catheter ablation.

It is a multi-center randomized clinical trial (RCT) which will enroll 3746 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) concomitant non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and undergoing new generation drug eluting stent (DES) implantation at 70 centers nationwide in China and contains two sub-studies. In the OPTIMA-3 sub-study, 2274 subjects who choose warfarin as anticoagulant will randomly receive triple antithrombotic therapy (warfarin with targeted INR 2.0-3.0, clopidogrel 75 mg od and aspirin 100 mg od) for 1 month or 6 months in a 1:1 ratio then quit aspirin till 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The primary endpoint of the OPTIMA-3 is a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic thromboembolism and unplanned revascularization up to 12 months; the major secondary endpoint is the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB). In the OPTIMA-4 sub-study, 1472 subjects who prefer dabigatran will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a dual antithrombotic therapy of dabigatran 110 mg twice daily with ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or with clopidogrel 75 mg od for 12 months after PCI. The primary safety endpoint of the OPTIMA-4 is ISTH major bleeding or CRNMB at 12 months; the primary efficacy endpoint is a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic thromboembolism and unplanned revascularization. Other secondary endpoints comprise death (cardiovascular, non- cardiovascular), MI (fatal or non-fatal, Q-wave or non-Q-wave), unplanned revascularization (target or non-target vessel, target or non-target lesion), stent thrombosis (possible, probable, definite), stroke (hemorrhage or ischemic), all bleeding (ISTH and BARC criteria) and net adverse events. All endpoints will be collected and compared between subgroups and sub-studies during hospitalization and in 1 month (± 7 days), 6 months (± 7 days) and 12 months (± 7 days) for office visits and in 2 weeks (± 7 days), 2 months (± 7 days) and 3 months (± 7 days) for phone call visits.

The purpose of the Diamond-AF II study is to establish the safety and effectiveness of the DiamondTemp Ablation System for the treatment of drug refractory, symptomatic persistent atrial fibrillation in patients.

Study Design: Lixiana Acute Stroke Evaluation Registry (LASER) is a randomized controlled trial with an associated registry. Patients with previously known or newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute ischemic stroke within five days will be randomized 2:1 to early (≤ 5 days) or delayed (6-14 days) edoxaban initiation. Ischemic stroke will be defined as evidence of acute focal cerebral infarction confirmed on CT/MRI and/or focal hypoperfusion/vessel occlusion on multimodal CT, or by sudden focal and objective neurological deficits (i.e NIHSS ≥ 1) of presumed ischemic origin persisting > 24 hours. Study Aim and Objectives: The primary aim of LASER is to demonstrate the safety of edoxaban initiation within five days of cardioembolic stroke. Secondary aim is to determine predictors of hemorrhagic transformation (HT) after cardioembolic stroke. Investigators will systematically assess prospectively collected Computed Tomography (CT) scan images for evidence of HT and re-infarction.

The goal of this pilot study is to explore the efficacy of chloroquine in terminating persistent AF and assess its potential role as a pharmacological cardioversion agent for the management of AF.

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

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.

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

The study aims to examine the effect of nurse-led education program on quality of life, atrial fibrillation (AF) risk factors, AF symptomatology, arrhythmia recurrence rate, and readmission rate after AF catheter ablation.