Status
Conditions
Treatments
About
The purpose of this study is to compare 2 invasive strategies for Atrial Fibrillation treatment, Endocardial catheter ablation isolation of the Pulmonary veins versus minimally invasive thoracoscopic surgical epicardial isolation. Both strategies are in use for several years now, and have been reported as a successful strategy with success rates of 60-90%. However, it is not known which technique is preferable in a given patient population in terms of efficacy to cure AF, safety, or patient discomfort. Therefore, in the present trial a randomized study is proposed to provide more insight into the relative merits of both techniques
Full description
Atrial Fibrillation is the most common cardiac arrhythmia, affecting millions of people around the world. It is a large burden on health care resources and may even lead to a shorter life expectancy. Drug treatment has been found insufficient and sometimes even hazardous to the pt. Traditionally, there was only one invasive approach available, being MAZE 3 procedure by means of full open chest cardiac surgery. This was a very invasive approach, limited to only a few skilled surgeons, with insufficient options to treat large pt volume.
With the discovery that AF often is initiated and maintained by electrical instability inside and around the Pulmonary Veins, catheter ablation is now a widely accepted early invasive strategy to cure AF. Success rates of 60% to 90% have been reported, depending on technique employed and the type of AF (Resp, chronic versus paroxysmal)
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
120 participants in 2 patient groups
Loading...
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal