Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 1:27 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-31 @ 5:25 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT02344394
Status:
WITHDRAWN
Last Update Posted:
2024-10-03
First Post:
2015-01-13
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Comparison of Hybrid Ablation and Pulmonary Vein Isolation Alone vs Hybrid Ablation With PVI Plus Catheter Ablation
Sponsor:
Wake Forest University Health Sciences
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Hybrid Ablation and Pulmonary Vein Isolation Alone Versus Hybrid Ablation With Pulmonary Vein Isolation Plus Catheter Ablation for CFAE and Linear Lesions
Status:
WITHDRAWN
Status Verified Date:
2018-12
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Patients did not want to be randomized in hybrid ablation.
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
The overall objective of the study is to compare and assess the clinical outcomes of the standard of care hybrid ablation using epicardial ablation in conjunction with endocardial PVI alone versus epicardial ablation in conjunction with endocardial ablation using PVI with additional RF ablation in a randomized, prospective population of patients with persistent AF of at least 6 months duration. All devices that are used are being utilized under the approved labeling of the devices.
Detailed Description:
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the leading causes of stroke and heart failure. It is also a major cause of hospitalizations and mortality (Stewart, Wattigney, and Wolf). Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are intolerant to Class I and III antiarrhythmic drugs often require endocardial ablation, which can include pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation or cryoballoon ablation (Medtronic, MN) and reported success rates vary (Calkins et al). In patients with persistent and long standing persistent AF success rates may not be as high (Akoum et al) and there is little data analyzing outcomes for patients in this population (Calkins et al). Using an epicardial-endocardial, or hybrid, approach Gehi et al describes a 66% 12 month arrythmia-free survival rate following the procedure, with 37% patients still on antiarrythmic drug therapy at 12 months. Furthermore, a paper by Anderson et al reports that the hybrid ablation results in lower costs and higher quality adjusted life years for patients with non-paroxysmal AF as reported by the studie's results of fewer repeat ablations and maintenance of sinus rhythm at 5 years. Conflicting reports exist on how much endocardial catheter ablation is needed for patients in persistent and long standing persistent AF. Verma et al reports results for patients in persistent AF having endocardial PVI compared to P VI plus additional linear lesions. Eighteen month success rates for these patients were 59% and 46% respectively.
Success of surgical hybrid ablation using epicardial ablation cocontaminent with endocardial PVI alone versus the hybrid approach using epicardial ablation with endocardial ablation consisting of PVI ablation and RF ablation has not been studied using a randomized, prospective approach.
If it is found that the PVI alone is as effective as PVI plus additional catheter ablation for patients receiving a hybrid ablation, it may reduce the need for extensive catheter ablation, thereby reducing the radiation exposure, procedure time, and radiofrequency ablation time.
Success of surgical hybrid ablation using epicardial ablation cocontaminent with endocardial PVI alone versus the hybrid approach using epicardial ablation with endocardial ablation consisting of PVI ablation and RF ablation has not been studied using a randomized, prospective approach.
If it is found that the PVI alone is as effective as PVI plus additional catheter ablation for patients receiving a hybrid ablation, it may reduce the need for extensive catheter ablation, thereby reducing the radiation exposure, procedure time, and radiofrequency ablation time.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: