Active clinical trials for "Atrial Fibrillation"

The investigators will compare the ablation time during pulmonary vein isolation of Ablation Index-guided high power ablation with those with conventional ablation. Ablation time of conventional group will be used from OPTIMUM study. For secondary outcomes, acute outcomes of pulmonary vein isolation using two different strategies will be compared. During 1 year of follow-up in both groups, atrial fibrillation recurrence will be evaluated. The atrial fibrillation recurrence rate at 1 year after pulmonary vein isolation will be compared between the two groups. In addition, fluoroscopic time, procedure time, and complication rates for the high power ablation group will be compared with those with conventional power.

This study is to compare the efficacy and safety of dabigatran ethidium b.i.d.+ clopidogrel + ASA [100 mg q.d. *1 month] and warfarin + clopidogrel + ASA [100 mg, q.d.*1 month] in Chinese NVAF patients undergoing PCI with stenting (elective or due to ACS).

Despite good progress in the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), this arrhythmia remains one of the major causes of stroke, heart failure, sudden death, and cardiovascular morbidity in the world. Furthermore, the number of patients with AF is predicted to rise steply in the coming years. Even if the amount of antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) is constantly increasing, there is a group of patients who has AF, resistant to AAD therapy. In such cases they are being offered alternative minimally invasive procedures, such as catheter or thoracoscopic ablation. With the discovery that AF often is initiated and maintained by electrical instability inside and around the pulmonary veins (PV) catheter and thoracoscopic ablation are now widely accepted invasive strategies to cure AF. Even though the results of both of the procedures are very promising in treating patients with paroxysmal AF, the decision making process, which approach should be used in patients with persistant or LSPAF, is still very controversial. According to 2016 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS, catheter or surgical ablation should be considered in patients with symptomatic persistent or long-standing persistent (LSP) AF refractory to AAD therapy to improve symptoms, considering patient choice, benefit and risk, supported by an AF Heart Team (IIaC). Since, there is no actual evidence base, which approach is more effective and save in patients with persistant and LSP AF, the aim of the investigator's study is to evaluate the results of both of the approaches in such group of patients.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a lifestyle modification intervention focused on healthy eating, regular exercise and behavioural therapy to decrease the length and number of atrial fibrillation episodes as well as gain an understanding of the impact of these changes on the gut microbiome.

The purpose of this clinical randomized trial is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan compared with ARB in improving cardiac remodeling in patients With Enlarged Left Atrium Diameter and Persistent AF.

Anticoagulants are used to prevent thrombotic events in patients with predisposing factors. However, the use of such therapies is associated with bleeding complications, which can be a serious safety issue. Thus, it is important to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of such therapies based on data collected in clinical practice in order to generate relevant scientific data that could be used to support clinical and regulatory decisions. This is an open, prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study that aims to prospectively record the clinical history of adult patients receiving anticoagulant treatment, irrespectively of the prescribed drug and the indication for its use.

Amiodarone is considered the medicine of choice in heart rate control in critically ill patients with atrial fibrillation with high ventricular response. However, a recent retrospective study showed a greater number of events in critical patients in whom there was an attempt to control versus in which there was no. Therefore, the prospective and randomized comparative use of amiodarone in this group of patients has not yet been described. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of the use of amiodarone (restricted group) versus placebo (liberal group) in heart rate control in atrial fibrillation with high ventricular response in patients with sepsis and vasopressor cardiovascular dysfunction. For this, a unicentric, randomized, blind and prospective study will be performed, in which the restrictive versus liberal strategy is performed in a comparative way. Hospital data (test results, medical evolutions complications) of patients will be analyzed to calculate safety and effectiveness. Expected results: The liberal strategy is superior to the restrictive strategy and causes fewer adverse events.

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.

The aim of this study is to determine the effects of fluid alternations, hemodynamic changes, mechanical ventilation, pharmacologic agents, positional changes, and comorbidities on the Peripheral Intravenous waveform Analysis (PIVA) signal.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the most common tachyarrhythmias with substantial morbidity, disability and mortality. It is estimated that the number of patients with AF is expected to reach 7 million by 2050. Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) are the effective treatment for patients with drug-refractory symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent AF. However, the successful rate of RFCA for persistent AF during the first procedure still relatively low, the investigators also need pharmacological cardioversion or external electrical conversion. Several studies showed intravenous nifekalant injection after RFCA provided relative high rate of sinus conversion during catheter ablation in paroxysmal or persistent AF. Nevertheless, there is still no acceptable universal opinion on which dosage of nifekalant is preferable for converting AF during the operation. In order to address this issue, the investigators initiated the study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different doses of intravenous nifekalant injection in the rapid cardioversion of persistent AF during radiofrequency catheter ablation.