NCT06745167

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Extensive Electro-Anatomical Guided Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Electro-Anatomical Guided Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation in the Treatment of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

• Status: Not Yet Recruiting
• Phase: N/A
• Study type: Interventional
• Enrollment: 600 (estimated)
• Sponsor: Shanghai Chest Hospital · Academic / Other
• Sex: All
• Age: 18 Years – 80 Years
• Healthy volunteers: Not accepted

Summary

This multicenter, randomized controlled trial aims to compare the efficacy and safety of extensive electro-anatomical guided pulsed field ablation (EXT-PFA) with traditional radiofrequency ablation (RF) in treating persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF). The trial seeks to determine if EXT-PFA, which integrates anatomical and electrogram-guided strategies, can provide superior outcomes in terms of safety and effectiveness compared to the standard RF ablation approach.

Conditions

• Atrial Fibrillation (AF)

Interventions

Type	Name	Description
PROCEDURE	Pulsed field ablation	Utilizing pulsed field ablation (PFA), combining pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with extensive ablation based on anatomical landmarks (including posterior wall box isolation) and electrogram-guided ablation.
PROCEDURE	Radiofrequency ablation alone	Using conventional radiofrequency ablation technology, combines pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with extensive ablation based on anatomical landmarks (including posterior wall box isolation) and electrogram-guided ablation

Timeline

• Start date: 2025-01-01
• Primary completion: 2026-12-31
• Completion: 2026-12-31
• First posted: 2024-12-20
• Last updated: 2024-12-20

Locations

1 site across 1 country: China