Status
Conditions
Treatments
About
This clinical trial aims to compare the efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation and radiofrequency ablation to treat persistent atrial fibrillation in adults.
Participants will:
Undergo pulsed field ablation or radiofrequency ablation. Keep follow-up for at least 12 months.
Full description
Traditional treatment options for persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) include pharmacological management, electrical cardioversion, and catheter ablation. Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has become the cornerstone of ablation therapy and has been shown to be effective in clinical practice. However, its efficacy is relatively limited in patients with persistent AF compared with those with paroxysmal AF, and many patients still experience recurrence after treatment.
In recent years, linear ablation strategies based on alcohol ablation have been shown to improve the one-year maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with PeAF. Traditional radiofrequency ablation (RF) has demonstrated good outcomes but still has certain limitations when dealing with PeAF. In several clinical studies, pulsed field ablation (PFA), an emerging and innovative technique, has shown non-inferiority in treating paroxysmal AF. Furthermore, PFA has also demonstrated significant efficacy in linear ablation sites such as the mitral isthmus line, posterior left atrial wall, and tricuspid isthmus line, highlighting its potential in treating PeAF. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of PFA and radiofrequency ablation (RF) in the treatment of PeAF through a multi-center, prospective, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority clinical trial, to provide a safer and more effective treatment option for clinical practice.
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
700 participants in 2 patient groups
Loading...
Central trial contact
Deyong Long
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal