Comparison of Different Pulsed Field Ablation Catheters in Atrial Fibrillation

Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexAll
Age118+
SponsorHangzhou Dinova EP Technology Co., Ltd

About this trial

Pulsed field energy ablation, a non-thermal ablation modality, can potentially reduce post-ablation tissue edema. Previous studies have confirmed the feasibility and safety of combined pulsed field ablation (PFA) and left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) as a one-stop treatment, with few reports of post-ablation tissue edema. However, during PFA procedures, the presence of metallic components in the ablation site (e.g., occluder frames, metallic valves) may lead to arcing during energy delivery, compromising procedural safety. Therefore, when performing PFA+LAAC as a one-stop procedure, a "ablation-first" strategy is recommended. Due to the influence of parameters such as voltage, pulse width, and number of cycles on pulsed field energy characteristics, significant variability in ablation depth and area may exist between different PFA devices. To date, no large-scale clinical studies have compared the efficacy and safety of different PFA systems. Accordingly, this study will conduct a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness and safety of domestic versus imported pulsed field ablation catheters in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

Eligibility criteria

This trial does not accept healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

Older than 18 years.

Diagnosed with drug-refractory, symptomatic atrial fibrillation.

The patient has a high risk of stroke (CHA2DS2-VA score ≥ 2).

requires oral anticoagulation therapy

Disqualifiers

History of persistent atrial fibrillation >1 year.

Atrial fibrillation was secondary to thyroid disease or other reversible reasons.

Left atrial anteroposterior diameter >50 mm.

Evidence of left atrial or left atrial appendage thrombus on imaging examination.

Trial design

Design model

Parallel

Treatments tested in this trial

  • CardiPulse

    Device

    abc

  • FaraPulse

    Device

    bcd

Treatment groups

292 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groups
Group A: CardiPulse GroupExperimental treatment 1 intervention
Group B: FaraPulse GroupActive comparator 1 intervention

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

12-month atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation success rate

Defined as the absence of AF, atrial flutter (AFL), or atrial tachycardia (AT) episodes ≥30 seconds on dynamic electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring after the blanking period (90 days post-catheter ablation)

Time frame
12 months post-procedure

Secondary outcomes

1

Acute pulmonary vein ablation success rate

Defined as maintained bidirectional block across the ablation line 20 minutes after ablation

Time frame
Immediately post-procedure
2

Incidence of major adverse events (MAEs) related to the device

Including stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), pulmonary vein stenosis, phrenic nerve paralysis, systemic embolism, pericarditis, pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade, atrioesophageal fistula, myocardial infarction, or severe vascular access complications

Time frame
Within 7 days post-procedure
3

Incidence of repeat ablation

Summary ncidence of repeat ablation after the blanking period

Time frame
Within 12 months post-procedure
4

AF burden

Record AF burden at 6 and 12 months post-procedure

Time frame
6 and 12 months post-procedure

Other outcomes

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.