View clinical trials related to Atrial Flutter.
Filter by:Catheter ablation is recommended as first-line therapy for most patients with typical atrial flutter. The most common approach is to create an ablation line across the cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI). Traditionally, atrial flutter ablation has been performed with a conventional approach using two catheters, an ablation catheter and a duodecapolar catheter that is placed at the level of the tricuspid annulus to confirm the CTI block. Recently, a single catheter approach has been described using the behavior of PR interval change during differential pacing over the ablation line to prove CTI block. This prospective, randomized, multicenter study analyzes the effectivity of a single catheter approach compared with conventional approach in terms of clinical outcomes.
Follow a representative sample of Latin American patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation to set data on demographic characteristics, documenting antithrombotic therapy, describe the INR control level of VKA users, discontinuation rates and clinical outcomes, such as stroke, hemorrhage and death
The optimal antithrombotic management in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) is unknown. AF patients are treated with oral anticoagulation (OAC) to prevent ischemic stroke and systemic embolism and patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are treated with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), i.e. aspirin plus P2Y12 inhibitor, to prevent stent thrombosis (ST) and myocardial infarction (MI). Patients with AF undergoing PCI were traditionally treated with triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT, i.e. OAC plus aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor) to prevent ischemic complications. However, TAT doubles or even triples the risk of major bleeding complications. More recently, several clinical studies demonstrated that omitting aspirin, a strategy known as dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) is safer compared to TAT with comparable efficacy. However, pooled evidence from recent meta-analyses suggests that patients treated with DAT are at increased risk of MI and ST. Insights from the AUGUSTUS trial showed that aspirin added to OAC and clopidogrel for 30 days, but not thereafter, resulted in fewer severe ischemic events. This finding emphasizes the relevance of early aspirin administration on ischemic benefit, also reflected in the current ESC guideline. However, because we consider the bleeding risk of TAT unacceptably high, we propose to use a short course of DAPT (omitting OAC for 1 month). There is evidence from the BRIDGE study that a short period of omitting OAC is safe in patients with AF. In this study, these patients are treated with DAPT, which also prevents stroke, albeit not as effective as OAC. This temporary interruption of OAC will allow aspirin treatment in the first month post-PCI where the risk of both bleeding and stent thrombosis is greatest. The WOEST 3 trial is a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial investigating the safety and efficacy of one month DAPT compared to guideline-directed therapy consisting of OAC and P2Y12 inhibitor combined with aspirin up to 30 days. We hypothesise that the use of short course DAPT is superior in bleeding and non-inferior in preventing ischemic events. The primary safety endpoint is major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding as defined by the ISTH at 6 weeks after PCI. The primary efficacy endpoint is a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or stent thrombosis at 6 weeks after PCI.
Catheter ablation is a first-line treatment for patients with cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) dependent atrial flutter (AFL; also known as typical AFL), a common arrhythmia. This is done using radiofrequency (RF) catheters and single-procedure success is approximately 95%. Ablation is often done using one of three methods: 1. fluoroscopically, using X-rays to guide the operator to visualise catheter position within the heart. This method involves the most radiation exposure to patient and operator. Ablation is generally performed for a set time-period (eg. 30-60secs) to ensure each ablation lesion is successful. 2. using a 3-dimensional mapping system which allows the catheters to be magnetically located and visualised on a monitor without X-rays, and using "contact force" (CF) sensing catheters. This requires minimal X-ray use, and by ensuring a minimum degree of force between catheter tip and the heart before applying RF for a set time-period (eg. 30 seconds), operators can be more confident of successful lesions. 3. using an ultra-high density mapping system which uses magnetic tracking as above, but allows higher resolution visualisation of the cardiac electrical system with potential for improving procedure success; this has not yet been formally evaluated for AFL. Catheters using this method use "local impedance" (LI) instead of CF. This is a direct measure of heart tissue impedance with real-time changes during ablation. A minimum drop or plateau in the LI value during ablation allows confidence of lesion success, without the need to ablate for a pre-defined time-period. This could potentially reduce ablation time and subsequent complications, but has also not yet been formally compared to the above for this indication. This prospective randomised study aims to compare these three standard of care procedures to determine if differences in ablation metrics, efficacy and safety exist.
Atrial fibrillation is a heart rhythm disorder with increased risk of stroke, heart failure, dementia and death. The severity of symptoms in atrial fibrillation varies markedly, ranging from no symptoms to those with disabling symptoms. An ECG recording is currently mandatory for diagnosing atrial fibrillation. A portable method for heart rhythm diagnostics that is readily available is currently missing in clinical practice. If a standard smartphone could be used for heart rhythm diagnostics, the availability could improve greatly. Treatment with direct current cardioversion is a procedure in which the heart rhythm is normalized by an electrical shock through the chest. Patients with atrial fibrillation are in some cases recommended treatment with direct current cardioversion but the procedure is costly, has a high recurrence rate and includes an increased risk for stroke. In this study we will validate the use of a novel smartphone-based method for heart rhythm diagnostics when used by patients in their home environment. The novel method is using the smartphone camera as a sensor. Patients will be doing heart rhythm measurements with the novel smartphone-based method in their home environment for 30 days after successfully receiving treatment of atrial fibrillation with direct current cardioversion. The novel smartphone-based method will be validated against simultaneous recordings with mobile ECG. We will also study the feasibility in using smartphone recordings and mobile ECG in the home environment the weeks before receiving treatment with direct current cardioversion, to study the possible benefit of detecting spontaneous conversions to normal heart rhythm and missed doses of treatment with blood thinning medication, both of which will lead to cancellation or detention of the cardioversion procedure.
The AFFELECT -study compares two types of treatment modalities for acute atrial fibrillation or flutter for patients in whom rhythm control is desirable. The main purpose is to observe if these arrhythmias can be safely treated electively (within 5-9 days). All patients are recruited in the emergency department. Patients must be in good clinical condition so that they can be discharged regardless to which treatment modality is randomly selected to them. Patients randomized to conventional care are treated conventionally which means acute rhythm control is applied by electrical or medical cardioversion in the emergency department (within 48 hours of onset of the arrhythmia). Patients randomized to elective care are discharged immediately after adequate temporary rhythm control is assured. All patients will visit a cardiologist out-patient clinic at approximately one week after the emergency room visit. Patients randomized to elective treatment and still in atrial fibrillation or in atrial flutter will be restored to sinus rhythm by electrical or medical cardioversion at the out-patient clinic. Cardiovascular status and treatment options are evaluated for all patients. Anticoagulation is managed according existing guidelines for all patients. Due to possibility of delayed cardioversion in the interventional group (elective care group), all patients receive anticoagulation before the out-patient clinic despite their thromboembolic risk. All patients who have not received adequate anticoagulation for three weeks prior to the delayed cardioversion will undergo a transesophageal cardiac ultrasound to ensure they are not in excess risk for thromboembolic events. Patients randomized to elective treatment have the possibility to opt-out and undergo acute cardioversion if their symptoms are unmanageable during the first week before the out-patient clinical. All patients are monitored for their symptoms by a standardized quality-of-life questionnaire and for possibly required acute medical interventions during the first week and one month after the out-patient clinic. After one month, all patients undergo an electrocardiography (ECG) to ensure the maintenance of normal rhythm in both treatment groups. After the months follow-up all patients are subsequently monitored for a maximum of five years for need of medical interventions due to atrial fibrillation of atrial flutter. New antiarrhythmics such as flecainide are not prescribed during the first month.
A randomized, open-blinded, prospective study to evaluate the timeliness and safety of direct current cardioversion (DCCV) when using methohexital when compared to the more often used propofol.
The administration of intravenous non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers such as diltiazem for patients presenting in atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response, without evidence of pre-excitation, are recommended first-line therapies by the American Heart Association.1 Hypotension warrants careful consideration in the treatment of atrial fibrillation with a rapid ventricular response. Hemodynamic stability is a continuum, however, and rate control is often vital, particularly in patients who are refractory to electrical cardioversion [or who have underlying conditions such that tachycardia is not well tolerated]. Diltiazem has been utilized in dosing such as 2.5 mg/min in those with decreased blood pressure and atrial fibrillation with elevated ventricular rate.2 Lim et al. in 2002 demonstrated the effectiveness of a slow infusion of diltiazem 2.5 mg/min to a maximum of 50 mg to control rate in supraventricular tachycardia. The study of the slow infusion of diltiazem has been limited to supraventricular tachycardia. No literature exists evaluating the efficacy of such a gradual infusion in atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, rhythms affecting 2.7 million to 6.1 million Americans.1,3 It can be reasoned that a gradual infusion of diltiazem will minimize side effects, predominantly hypotension, and perhaps even demonstrate efficacy in alleviating hypotension due to decreased stroke volume from excessive tachycardia. The proposed benefits of an infusion, as compared to a bolus, would allow for the termination of an infusion as soon as rate control is achieved thus limiting the potential for hypotension. With current evidence-based literature validating the superiority of non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers and questions surrounding present recommendations of weight based intravenous dosing, the authors suggest an inquiry into the utility of a gradual infusion of diltiazem for initial rate control in patients presenting with atrial fibrillation or flutter with or without hypotension related to excessive tachycardia. This is a prospective, randomized, double blind investigation to compare the effectiveness of standard IV (intravenous) push diltiazem at 0.25 mg/kg (to a maximum of 25 mg) over 2 minutes, with a potential repeat dose of 0.35 mg/kg if the initial dose is not effective versus a slow infusion of 50 mg of IV diltiazem diluted in 50 mL of 0.9% normal saline (NS) administered over 20 minutes. The investigators anticipate the data to be collected over the course of 2-3 years. These methods of diltiazem administration are already accepted practices at our institution and are consistent with current approved product labeling and professional judgment based upon clinical experience, and therefore the investigators do not foresee any additional risk to patients enrolled in our proposed study. In either treatment group, should hypotension or other clinical evidence of poor systemic perfusion, no additional IV diltiazem, or additional administration of a diltiazem infusion will be administered. The primary outcome measured will be the efficacy of treatment as defined by the obtainment of a heart rate of <110 beats/minute within 30 minutes of drug administration. Secondary outcomes evaluated will include the need for additional medications to achieve rate control including the need for repeat diltiazem bolus at 0.35 mg/kg, electrical cardioversion, admission, allergic reactions, and side effects including, but not limited to, systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg or bradycardia with heart rate less than 60 bpm.
The purpose of this study is to determine if an AF detection intervention in men and women at least 70 years of age with undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (AFL) reduces the person-years incidence rate of stroke compared to usual care (no AF detection intervention).
The purpose of this study is to better understand the following aims: 1. Aim 1: To evaluate the rate of recurrent Atrial Fibrillation (AF)/Atrial Flutter (AFL) in hematopoietic stem call transplant (HCST) patients with incident AF/AFL identified during the initial 30 days of the transplant 2. Aim 2: To evaluate incident episodes of 1) stroke/TIA; 2) other thromboembolic events (not stroke/TIA); 3) Heart failure events; 4) Ischemic heart events 3. Aim 3: To evaluate overall implantation safety in this population