Cryoablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation

Congenital Disorders Clinical Trial

Official title:

A Review and Comparison of Cryoablation and Radiofrequency Ablation in Children

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Terminated

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT00238823
• Other study ID #: 05-108
• Status: Terminated
• Phase: N/A
• First received: October 12, 2005
• Last updated: May 22, 2007
• Start date: January 2004
• Est. completion date: December 2004

Study information

• Verified date: May 2007
• Source: Children's Healthcare of Atlanta
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Health authority: United States: Institutional Review Board
• Study type: Observational

Clinical Trial Summary

The purpose of this retrospective study is to describe why and when we used cryo and why we crossed over when we used both RFA and cryo. It is also to determine if there is some predictor that would make us say one patient would be better served with one technique than another and to describe our overall acute success rate and then our 6-month recurrence rate with cryo ablation and compare it to our known success rate with RFA.

Description:

Cryotherapy (Cryo) is a new ablation energy source used instead of the radiofrequency (RFA) method for ablation of septal pathways. In the past year, we have used cryo approximately 50 times, however 50% of the cryo procedures crossed over from RFA to cryo or cryo to RFA. It appears to me that cryo use should be as an adjunct therapy to RFA instead of replacement of RFA.

I would like to describe why and when we used cryo and why we crossed over when we used both RFA and cryo. I would like to determine if there is some predictor that would make us say one patient would be better served with one technique than another. I would also describe our overall acute success rate and then our 6-month recurrence rate with cryo ablation and compare it to our known success rate with RFA. All of this can be done with a chart review.

This will be done through a retrospective study.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Terminated
• Enrollment: 50
• Est. completion date: December 2004
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: Both
• Age group: N/A and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• charts between January 1 and 2004 to December 31, 2004

• pediatric population

• those who were ablated

Exclusion Criteria:

Study Design

Observational Model: Defined Population, Time Perspective: Longitudinal

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Congenital Disorders

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	Children's Healthcare of Atlanta	Atlanta	Georgia

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Children's Healthcare of Atlanta

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States,