Clinical Research Directory

Pulsed Field Ablation Outcomes With Efficacy and Randomization in Atrial Fibrillation (POWER-AF)

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the most common arrhythmias in clinical practice. As of 2019, there were approximately 59.7 million patients with AF worldwide, including atrial flutter (AF). Atrial fibrillation can significantly increase the risks of stroke, thromboembolism and heart failure in patients, seriously affecting their quality of life. Catheter ablation is the main means for rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation. A large number of clinical studies have confirmed the effectiveness and safety of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. It is significantly superior to drug treatment in maintaining sinus rhythm and can significantly improve symptoms and quality of life. Pulsed electric field ablation (PFA) is a novel ablation method that utilizes pulsed electric fields as energy. It uses multiple short-duration and high-voltage electrical pulses to release ablation energy, selectively causing myocardial cells to rupture and die. However, it has no obvious damaging effect on blood vessels, nerves, and tissues around the heart, such as the lungs, esophagus, and phrenic nerve. This trial was designed based on the advantage of the characteristic that PFA does not damage the esophagus, confining the damage to the posterior half of the left atrium and the circumferential isthmus of the mitral valve. While improving the ablation success rate, it is possible to protect the function of the left atrium. This study aims to verify the superiority of the new rhythm control strategy in a large-scale population by launching a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Randomized Controlled Trial- Ablation Strategy for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation - Trigger and Substrate Guided Wide Area Radiofrequency Ablation Compared to Pulsed Field Ablation Pulmonary Vein Isolation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common heart rhythm disorder affecting over a million people in North America and is associated with serious complications including stroke, heart failure, reduced quality of life, and premature death. Catheter ablation has been shown to be more effective than medications for controlling symptoms and reducing the risk of these complications; however, recurrence of AF after ablation remains a significant challenge, often due to incomplete or ineffective initial procedures. This clinical trial aims to determine whether a novel, patient-tailored ablation strategy can improve outcomes compared to the current standard-of-care approach. Participants will be randomly assigned to undergo either standard pulmonary vein isolation or a more individualized ablation procedure that identifies and targets patient-specific sources of AF. All participants will undergo the ablation procedure, receive continuous heart rhythm monitoring, and be followed over time to assess recurrence and safety outcomes.

Effect of Mechanical Ventilation on Cardiac RF Ablation

The aim of this study is to describe the results of cardiac radiofrequency ablation under general anesthesia. to evaluate mechanical ventilation methods in pediatric patients. The main questions it aims to answer are 1. Whether lower tidal volume high frequency mechanical ventilation effects the success of radiofrequency ablation in pediatric cardiac arryhtmia patient? 2. The effect of mechanical ventilation strategies on the number of effective lesions, radiofrequency ablation time and arrhythmia recurrence in the first month

Electroporation vs. Radiofrequency Ablation Guided by 3D Imaging in Repeat Procedures for Atrial Fibrillation

This is a prospective, randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of two techniques for repeat catheter ablation in patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF): thermal energy ablation (radiofrequency) and non-thermal electroporation (pulsed field ablation), both guided by 3D imaging systems. Patients undergoing repeat AF ablation will be randomly assigned to receive either thermal or electroporation ablation, performed according to standard hospital protocols. No additional invasive procedures are required. Following the ablation, participants will attend follow-up visits at 3, 6, and 12 months, including medical history review, physical examination, 12-lead ECG, and 24-hour Holter monitoring. Unscheduled ECG assessments will also be available if arrhythmia symptoms occur. All study-related procedures are non-invasive and align with routine post-ablation care. Risks are limited to those typically associated with standard AF ablation procedures. The main benefit of participation is close, structured follow-up by experienced electrophysiologists, allowing for early detection of arrhythmia recurrence and timely medical intervention when necessary. Participant confidentiality and data protection will be ensured in accordance with GDPR regulations.

Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

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.