View clinical trials related to Ventricular Tachycardia.
Filter by:Ventricular tachycardia (VT) is a leading cause of death and suffering in the Veteran population. Currently, ablation procedures are performed to destroy the diseased tissue that causes this problem. This study will test to see if a new non-invasive targeting tool can help guide doctors during the procedure and improve the outcomes of the ablation procedure. Once this study is completed, the investigators will know whether this tool could help increase the efficacy, safety and accuracy of ablation therapy of fatal heart rhythms.
Data collection registry for patients with ventricular tachycardia to help physicians give better care for patients clinically and procedurally.
This is a multi-center, parallel-group, randomized, open-label trial evaluating the clinical outcome and efficacy of emergency catheter ablation versus conventional stepped-care strategies in patients with haemodynamically not-tolerated ventricular tachycardia (VT).
The PMCF is a prospective, single-arm, multi-center, controlled study of up to 130 patients designed to collect safety and performance data regarding the use of the Adagio VT Cryoablation System in the treatment of recurrent ventricular tachycardia.
Substrate-based DEEP mapping and activation mapping are two of the main techniques used for guiding ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation. There is no data comparing directly the extent of applicability, procedural results, and the long-term outcomes between the two mapping strategies.This randomized clinical trial aims to test whether activation mapping is superior to DEEP mapping to reduce ventricular tachycardia recurrence. The primary endpoint of the study is to compare recurrence-free survival rate of ventricular tachycardia at 12 months and procedural feasibility of substrate-based DEEP mapping versus activation mapping for VT ablation.
The goal of this randomized clinical trial is to test the efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in treating ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with advanced structural heart disease. The main questions it aims to answer are: - What is the efficacy of SBRT compared to catheter ablation (CA) in achieving a ≥ 75% reduction in VT burden at 6 months - What is the comparable safety profile of SBRT vs CA Researchers will compare SBRT and CA (standard of care).
The goal of this observational study is to evaluate the clinical characteristics of patients undergoing permanent cardiac pacing and to compare procedural efficacy and safety of different implantation approaches in the clinical practice of the participating centres. The contribution of non-fluoroscopic anatomical and electrophysiological reconstruction systems to device implantation procedures will also be evaluated. Participants [patients over 18 years old with an indication to receive a definitive pacemaker/intracardiac defibrillator implant] will receive a permanent cardiac pacing implant as requested according to European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines; the investigators will evaluate procedural efficacy and safety of different implantation approaches.
Evidence for the usefulness of the defibrillator in cases of preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and well-tolerated ventricular tachycardia (without cardiocirculatory arrest or syncope) is lacking, as no previous trials have included such patients. Additionally, sudden death in this particular population is low compared to other subgroups of patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmias. On the other hand, numerous recent retrospective data show that ablation of ventricular tachycardia can reduce mortality, and also clearly reduces the number of recurrences in prospective studies. Finally, a very low rate of sudden death was observed in a multicenter European retrospective study that we conducted, including patients with well-tolerated ventricular tachycardia in structural heart disease with minimally impaired ejection fraction and benefiting from ablation without implantation of defibrillator.
The objective of this study is to determine if there is a meaningful benefit to using the sedative medication dexmedetomidine in the acute treatment of patients with recurrent ventricular arrhythmias, known as electrical storm. This will be a multi-centre, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. Patients with electrical storm will be randomized to receive 48 to 72 hours of dexmedetomidine or placebo as part of their initial treatment in an intensive care unit.
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) are currently recommended for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with a remote (>6 weeks) myocardial infarction (MI) and a low (≤35%) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Ventricular tachycardia (VT) and/or ventricular fibrillation (VF), which are responsible for most SCDs, result from the presence of surviving myocytes embedded within fibrotic MI-scar. The presence of these surviving myocytes, as well as their specific arrhythmic characteristics, is not captured by LVEF. Hence, the use of LVEF as a unique risk-stratifier of SCD results in a low proportion (17 to 31%) of appropriate ICD device therapy at 2 years. Consequently, most patients with a prophylactic ICD do not present VT/VF requiring ICD therapy prior to their first-ICD battery depletion. Thus, many patients are exposed to ICD complications, such as inappropriate shocks, without deriving any health benefit. Therefore, the current implantation strategy of prophylactic ICDs, based on LVEF only, needs to be improved in post-MI patients.