View clinical trials related to Atrial Flutter.
Filter by:Porous tip catheter use reduces procedure time and RF time in atrial flutter ablation with the same safety.
Successful radio frequency (RF) cardiac catheter ablation requires the creation of lesions by delivering energy while maintaining adequate catheter contact with the endocardium. Unfortunately, it is difficult to identify contact intraoperatively as a typical RF ablation catheter lacks clear indications of contact. We propose to use the Boston Scientific IntellaTip MiFi catheter to explore whether characteristics of the electrograms produced by the mini-electrodes on the ablation tip could help confirm tissue contact. Using an ultrasound catheter to define instances of clear contact and non-contact, we will determine whether the micro-electrodes produce sufficient information to confirm catheter contact. We propose that the MiFi catheter produces sufficient signal characteristics that can be used as an effective surrogate for adequate tissue contact.
Purpose: Warfarin is now the most commonly used oral anticoagulant. This drug has inter-individual variability due to the genetic polymorphisms in the warfarin metabolizing enzyme, CYP2C9 and warfarin target, VKORC1. The investigators' team developed a pharmacogenetic dosing algorithm which can predict patients required warfarin dose, thus could prevent warfarin induced warfarin adverse events. Methods: The investigators recruited patients with indications for warfarin, the genotypes of VKORC1 and CYP2C9 were determined by the hospitals and verified by National Center for Genome Medicine. The investigators then randomized the patients to one of three arms: 1. Warfarin dose predicted by dosing algorithm developed by the International Warfarin pharmacogenetic Consortium (IWPC), 2. Algorithm developed by the Taiwan Warfarin Consortium and 3. Standard of care. The investigators aimed to determine whether using genetic dosing algorithm can lead to more stable dose and safer use of the drug.
Ablation of the cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) in the right atrium is currently the therapy of choice for the treatment of typical atrial flutter (3,4). It is a curative approach and has a high success rate (5). It has been recognized that patients with typical atrial flutter often complain of atrial fibrillation (1,2). Current clinical and experimental studies confirm the close relationship between atrial flutter (AFL) and atrial fibrillation (AF) and raise a question, if both arrhythmias are different forms of a common electrical phenomenon with atrial fibrillation being the underlying clinical problem (6).
Atrial Fibrillation and atrial flutter (AF/FL) is the usually irregular beating of the heart and is a rapidly growing cause of hospitalization. Between 1993 to 2007 AF/FL hospitalizations have increased 203% compared to a 71% increase for all hospitalizations. Changing procedure management such as ablation, transesophageal have had a minimal impact on the trends and there is a need to evaluate Emergency Department (ED) management options of AF/FL that may decrease hospitalizations. The most commonly used medications to control heart rate are metoprolol (MET), a beta blocker, or diltiazem (DT), a calcium channel blocker. Beta blockers are medications that cause the heart to beat more slowly and with less force. DT also helps blood vessels open up to improve blood flow. Both DT and MET are used alone or together with other medicines to treat severe chest pain (angina), high blood pressure (hypertension) or rapid heartbeat. Both are equally acceptable according to recent guidelines for AF/FL. There are limited studies comparing MET to DT for rate control for AF/FL. The initial goal for AF/FL management in the Emergency Department is usually rate control. The most commonly used rate control medications are metoprolol (MET), a beta blocker, or diltiazem (DT) a calcium blocker. Three major guidelines, including the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) indicate beta blockers and DT are equally acceptable medications for rate control in AF (3,4,5) assuming no contraindications. There are limited studies comparing beta blockers (BB) to DT for rate control for AF: 1. Demircan, et. al., compared bolus intravenous BB and DT in 40 patients over a 20 minute period. No follow-up information after 20 minutes was reported. No attempt was made to look at intermediate or long term results. No patients converted to normal sinus rhythm over this short treatment period and there was slightly more rate decrease at 20 minutes, with DT versus BB (6). 2. Time from medication administration to heart rate and rhythm control. Additionally, currently guidelines consider BB or DT medications to slow AF/FL; however, there are some suggestions that BB may not only slow heart rate in AF/FL (as does DT) but also increase all AF/FL conversion from AF/FL to normal sinus rhythm(2), and aid in maintaining normal sinus rhythm (NSR) after cardioversion (10). With recent onset AF/FL occurring within 48 hours prior to the arrival to the ED, approximately 50% of AF/FL patients convert to normal rhythm spontaneously within 24 hours after arrival to the ED (6), making evaluation of current limited studies difficult. Thus, the investigators wish to examine the effect of initial medication strategy on time to NSR in a larger sample than has been previously performed. 3. A randomized study of 48 patients in China reported significantly slower heart rate up to 20 minutes with DT 10mg IV versus metoprolol 5mg IV but not after 30 minutes (7). 4. A retrospective study of post-operative coronary bypass patients showed the intravenous administration of the BB, esmolol, to be more effective than DT for rate control and conversion of AF/FL (8). 5. Hassan et al reported no difference in conversion to regular rhythm with esmolol verses DT in a small, under powered, randomized study of fifty ED patients (9). Conversion to sinus rhythm occurred in 10 patients (42%) in the DT group compared with 10 patients (39%) in the esmolol group (P = 1.0). There were no statistically significant differences in heart rate between the two medications at 1, 6, 12, and 24 hours after initiation of esmolol or DT infusion. Examples of such well quoted strategy trials are the COURAGE trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the PROMISE Trial, a worldwide multi-centered study that is nearing completion goal of 10,000 patients of which, Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC) has enrolled approximately 100 patients. In this trial, patients being evaluated for chest pain will be randomized to two treatment strategies and subsequent outcomes will be recorded. Strategy trials do not attempt to manage treatment after an initial management strategy has been determined by randomization, but, whether the initial treatment affects long-term outcomes. This will be a prospective, randomized study comparing the outcomes of a strategy using either MET or DT in patients with AF presenting to the Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC) ED. After presentation and receiving consent, the patient will be randomized to receive either MET or DT.
The aim of this randomized study was to assess the effectiveness of endomyocardial botulinum toxin injection for preventing post-procedural atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing the radiofrequency ablation of atrial flutter.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate major adverse bleeding risks, and thromboembolic event rates post radiofrequency (RF) ablation. The primary goal is to establish safety of dabigatran use for peri-procedural anti-coagulation after left atrial catheter radiofrequency ablation, or cryoablation procedures.
This study is being done to compare the effects of bucindolol hydrochloride (bucindolol) to metoprolol succinate (Toprol-XL) on the recurrence of symptomatic atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter in patients with heart failure who have a specific genotype for the beta-1 adrenergic receptor.
Thrombus outcome data will be collected retrospectively during 2011-2012 as a historical baseline of SoC with oral VKA (Vitamin K Antagonist(s) for the treatment of patients with nonvalvular AF or atrial flutter documented with LA/ LAA thrombi on transesophag-eal echocardiography (TEE). The study is a company-sponsored, global, multi-center, retrospective, non-interventional study. Patients who suffered from hemodynamically stable nonvalvular AF or atrial flutter and had a diagnosed LA/ LAA thrombus between January 1st, 2011 and December 31st, 2012 will be identified through screening and review of medical records and included in the registry. Retrospective patient data will be collected from May 2nd, 2013 to May 2nd, 2014. The observation of each patient will cover the period from the diagnosis of an LA/ LAA thrombus until the end-of-treatment TEE following the 3-12 week SoC anticoagulation (AC) therapy. If no end-of-treatment TEE has been performed during 3-12 weeks of AC therapy, the observational period will end at 12 weeks after diagnosis at the latest. If more than one TEE was performed during treatment, the thrombus outcome will be collected from the last TEE performed within 12 weeks of treatment start.
Acute atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained, clinically significant dysrhythmia encountered in the emergency department (ED) and the most common dysrhythmia treated by emergency physicians. Atrial flutter is less common than atrial fibrillation but its management in the ED is very similar, and the majority of patients with atrial flutter also have atrial fibrillation. Symptomatic relief and ventricular rate control are generally the primary therapeutic objectives in the ED management of acute atrial fibrillation and flutter (AFF). The need for swift, appropriate action by the emergency physician is highlighted by the fact that up to 18% of patients with AFF develop potentially life-threatening complications such as congestive heart failure, hypotension, ventricular ectopy, respiratory failure, angina and myocardial infarction. Both beta-blocking agents and calcium channel blockers are commonly used to treat AFF in the ED. Metoprolol is the most commonly used beta-blocker; and diltiazem is the most frequently used calcium channel antagonist.[8] Diltiazem was released by the FDA for treatment of AFF in 1992. Shreck et al. were the first to demonstrate both the efficacy of diltiazem in the ED management of AFF with rapid rate and its clear superiority over the previously most commonly used pharmacologic agent, digoxin. To date, only one prospective, randomized trial has compared the effectiveness of a calcium channel blocker (diltiazem) with a beta-blocker (metoprolol) for rate control of AFF in the ED. Despite the relatively small sample size (n=20 in each group) the authors concluded that both pharmacologic agents were similarly effective. In order to test this finding, the investigators conducted a prospective comparison of metoprolol and diltiazem for the management of patients presenting to the ED with AFF with rapid ventricular rate.