Atrial Fibrillation After Catheter Versus Thoracoscopic Ablation Using Patient Activated Implantable Loop Recorders: The ACTUAL Study — ACTUAL  

Atrial Fibrillation Clinical Trial

Official title: Atrial Fibrillation After Catheter Versus Thoracoscopic Ablation Using Patient Activated Implantable Loop Recorders

Status Withdrawn

Clinical Trial Summary

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common but often distressing condition. It can be treated with medications, but these are not always effective or tolerated. Ablation is a well-recognised technique that is recommended for those with symptomatic AF who have failed medical therapy.

Ablation can be performed in a number of ways. In percutaneous ablation, ablation is performed via tiny punctures in the skin in the groin. In minimally-invasive thoracoscopic ablation, ablation is performed under general anaesthetic via very small incisions in the chest wall.

Because AF can be intermittent, the only reliable way to look for it is with long-term ECG monitoring. A safe and practical way to do this is to use implantable loop recorders (ILRs).

In this study, the investigators are trying to see if minimally-invasive thoracoscopic ablation is better than percutaneous ablation, and in turn if they are better than Direct current cardioversion (DCCV), using ILRs to monitor AF.

Clinical Trial Description

n/a

Study Design

Allocation: Randomized, Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study, Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment, Masking: Open Label, Primary Purpose: Treatment

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Atrial Fibrillation

• NCT number: NCT01503268
• Study type: Interventional
• Source: Eastbourne General Hospital
• Status: Withdrawn
• Phase: Phase 4
• Start date: November 2012
• Completion date: November 2014