MedPath

Post-Market Randomized Trial: Endoscopically- Guided Ablation vs. Radiofrequency Ablation

Phase 4
Terminated
Conditions
Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation
Interventions
Device: RF PVI Ablation
Device: Endoscopically guided PVI Ablation
Registration Number
NCT01057394
Lead Sponsor
CardioFocus
Brief Summary

To compare the safety and chronic Pulmonary Vein isolation of 2 ablation types.

1. visually guided ablation (VGA) using the EAS-AC and

2. radiofrequency ablation

Detailed Description

The goal of the study was to compare two interventions, visually-guided endoscopic ablation to standard-of-care radiofrequency (RF) ablation. The study was terminated early by the Sponsor for business reasons before any participants were randomized or treated with RF ablation.

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status
TERMINATED
Sex
All
Target Recruitment
21
Inclusion Criteria

Not provided

Exclusion Criteria

Not provided

Study & Design

Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Design
PARALLEL
Arm && Interventions
GroupInterventionDescription
Radiofrequency AblationRF PVI AblationPVI using RF ablation
Visually Guided AblationEndoscopically guided PVI AblationPVI using visually guided ablation with an endoscopic ablation system
Primary Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
Rate of Permanent Pulmonary Vein Isolation of EAS-AC Compared to EAM Guided Radiofrequency Ablation3 Months

Number of initially isolated pulmonary veins that remain isolated at a 3 month remapping. The unit of measure is treated pulmonary veins (PVs).

Secondary Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod

Trial Locations

Locations (2)

Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine (IKEM)

🇨🇿

Prague, Czech Republic

Catholic University of the Sacred Heart

🇮🇹

Rome, Italy

© Copyright 2025. All Rights Reserved by MedPath