Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 5:11 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-26 @ 4:17 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT05708027
Status:
UNKNOWN
Last Update Posted:
2023-02-01
First Post:
2022-10-26
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
False
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Thoracoscopic Ablation for Lone Atrial Fibrillation
Sponsor:
Federal Research Clinical Center of Federal Medical & Biological Agency, Russia
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Two Strategies in Thoracoscopic Ablation for Lone Atrial Fibrillation
Status:
UNKNOWN
Status Verified Date:
2023-01
Last Known Status:
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
Background: Thoracoscopic ablation is an effective treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation. Nowadays, 2 types of ablative devices are available in clinical practice allowing one to perform the thoracoscopic procedure - Medtronic and AtriCure. However, the contemporary clinical literature does not have enough data that would compare these two approaches.
Aims: to perform a comparative analysis of the short-term results of two minimally invasive strategies in thoracoscopic ablation for atrial fibrillation.
Methods:
The retrospective study was performed in which included 232 patients underwent thoracoscopic ablation for atrial fibrillation in two clinical centers for the period from 2016 to August 2021. The patients were divided into 2 groups. The first group was represented by those patients to whom a Medtronic device was applied (n=140), the second group was treated with an AtriCure device (n=92). The patients were comparable in their age, gender, initial severity of the condition. The follow-up consisted of laboratory tests, chest Х-ray, electrocardiography, 24-hour Holter monitor, echocardiography. The structure and prevalence of intraoperative and postoperative complications, specifics of the postoperative period were compared between the two groups.
Aims: to perform a comparative analysis of the short-term results of two minimally invasive strategies in thoracoscopic ablation for atrial fibrillation.
Methods:
The retrospective study was performed in which included 232 patients underwent thoracoscopic ablation for atrial fibrillation in two clinical centers for the period from 2016 to August 2021. The patients were divided into 2 groups. The first group was represented by those patients to whom a Medtronic device was applied (n=140), the second group was treated with an AtriCure device (n=92). The patients were comparable in their age, gender, initial severity of the condition. The follow-up consisted of laboratory tests, chest Х-ray, electrocardiography, 24-hour Holter monitor, echocardiography. The structure and prevalence of intraoperative and postoperative complications, specifics of the postoperative period were compared between the two groups.
Detailed Description:
Patients of the thoracoscopic group were divided into 3 subgroups: I - low (no HF), II - medium (possible) and III - high risk of HF (HF confirmed) (Table 1). A statistically significant difference was found for the indicator: age (in the "high probability" group in relation to the "low probability" group by an average of 5.5 years; p=0.002) (Table 1). The clinical characteristics of patients in the studied subgroups are presented in Table 2, no significant difference was found for any of the compared indicators.
The nature of the cardiac arrhythmia and the severity of clinical symptoms are presented in Table 3. Significant differences were obtained for the following indicators: CHADS2VASc (in group III, "high probability" in relation to group I, "low probability" by an average of 1 point; p=0.008); HFA-PEFF (in group III, "high probability" by relative to group I "low probability" by an average of 5 points; p\<0.001). Also, significant dynamics was obtained by the frequency of diagnosis of paroxysmal and long-lasting persistent forms of AF (p=0.025). Significant differences were obtained in the number of patients with 3 FC of heart failure (in group III, compared with group I, 5.3% vs 0.0%, respectively)
The nature of the cardiac arrhythmia and the severity of clinical symptoms are presented in Table 3. Significant differences were obtained for the following indicators: CHADS2VASc (in group III, "high probability" in relation to group I, "low probability" by an average of 1 point; p=0.008); HFA-PEFF (in group III, "high probability" by relative to group I "low probability" by an average of 5 points; p\<0.001). Also, significant dynamics was obtained by the frequency of diagnosis of paroxysmal and long-lasting persistent forms of AF (p=0.025). Significant differences were obtained in the number of patients with 3 FC of heart failure (in group III, compared with group I, 5.3% vs 0.0%, respectively)
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: