Atrial FibrillationNCT02664311
A Randomized Comparison of the Use of JET and Conventional Ventilation in Pulmonary Vein Isolation
A study testing Jet Ventilation and Conventional ventilation in people with Atrial Fibrillation, run by Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
This is a randomized prospective study comparing outcomes of pulmonary vein isolation using conventional and jet ventilation. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 85 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Atrial Fibrillation
- What is being tested?
- Jet Ventilation and Conventional ventilation
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 21 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Feb 2013to Oct 2015
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 85 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- paroxysmal or persistent AF, first time PVI or left atrial procedure
Who cannot join
- repeat procedure
- any contraindications to receiving JET ventilation in the judgement of the treating anesthesiologist
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Boston, Massachusetts, 02215
About this study
This is a randomized prospective study comparing outcomes of pulmonary vein isolation using conventional and jet ventilation.
Read the detailed description
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in the United States today. Its incidence increases with age, and the prevalence approaches 10% in patients over 80 years old. Atrial fibrillation increases the risk of strokes, and in some patients is associated with worsened congestive heart failure and quality of life.
Catheter based radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation is an evolving and promising technology, and provides increased freedom from AF and improved quality of life compared with pharmacologic therapy. The technique involves placing catheters through the femoral veins into the heart, including the left atrium. Access to the left atrium is performed by transseptal puncture. Ablation of atrial fibrillation is performed by delivery of radiofrequency energy around the pulmonary veins in order to electrically dissociate them from the atria. This is thought to eliminate common triggers for atrial fibrillation, and therefore reduces the recurrence of AF in some patients.
The ablation procedure is done under general anesthesia and takes 4-8 hours. The first part of the procedure involves creating a computer generated three dimensional model of the left atrium. Once this model is created any patient movement will disrupt its accuracy and interfere with the physician's ability to accurately locate the catheter within the atrium.
The success of AF ablation is dependent upon the creation of an accurate three dimensional model, as well as physicians ability to perform durable lesions and achieve effective isolation of the pulmonary veins. Among the barriers to technical success are the patient's respiratory movement, which impairs catheter stability and the ability to maintain a stable catheter position against the atrium of the heart during ablation. Thus, minimizing respiratory movement during the procedure is critical to procedural outcome.
High frequency jet ventilation (HFJV) is a newer mode of ventilation that relies on very small tidal volumes delivered at high frequency (approximately 80-120 breaths/minute). Initially developed in the critical care setting, HFJV produces less respiratory motion due the small tidal volumes delivered. HFJV has been used successfully in procedures requiring increased stability of the field of interest, such as lithotripsy and percutaneous hepatic and renal radiofrequency ablation as well as stereotactic high single-dose irradiation of stage I non-small cell lung cancer and lung metastases. The initial report of the use of HFJV in radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of atrial fibrillation was by Goode et al in 2006. In that retrospective analysis, the use of HFJV was associated with a decrease in the number of ablation lesions, due to decreased number of attempts aborted by catheter dislodgement, as well as decreased variation in the size of the left atrium (LA) due to changes in pulmonary pressures associated with conventional ventilation. The incidence of complications was not significantly different between the HFJV and conventionally ventilated patients. More recently, Elkassabany et al. retrospectively reviewed their institutional experience with Jet ventilation, and found that the procedure could be performed safely.
HFJV is increasingly used and may improve procedure efficacy and safety, and may be cost effective. Data however are limited to small series and retrospective reviews. In order to better compare the efficacy and safety of HFJV to conventional ventilation, the investigators propose to conduct a prospective randomized study comparing the use of HJFV and conventional ventilation in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) at our institution. Our hypothesis is that HFJV, by allowing greater catheter stability and more accurate mapping of the left atrium will allow more effective radiofrequency lesion creation, leading to a quicker procedure, requiring fewer lesions and less ablation and fluoroscopy time with more effective isolation of the pulmonary veins with better short and long term control of AF.
- Conditions
- Atrial Fibrillation
- Being tested
- Jet Ventilation, Conventional ventilation
- Keywords
- Pulmonary Vein Isolation, Jet Ventilation, Atrial Fibrillation
- Medical subject headings
- Atrial Fibrillation
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Jet VentilationDevice
Patients are randomized to receive either jet or conventional ventilation during this study
Conventional ventilationDevice
Conventional ventilator - control arm
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional Ventilation | Placebo comparator | Patients receiving conventional ventilation for the duration of this study Receives: Device: Conventional ventilation |
| Jet Ventilation | Active comparator | Patients receiving Jet ventilation while under general anesthesia and during mapping and ablation in the left atrium Receives: Device: Jet Ventilation |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Isolation Time
Comparison of Time (in Minutes) From Obtaining Access to Left Atrium Via Transseptal Catheterization to Demonstrated Isolation of All Pulmonary Veins - hypothesis is that with Jet ventilation there will be a shorter time to pulmonary vein isolation in comparison to conventional ventilation
Measured: Immediate post procedure
Secondary outcomes (2)
Freedom From AF
Measured: 1 year
Fluoroscopy Time
Fluoro time as recorded by RNs from Xray machine
Measured: Immediate post-procedure
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Jan 2016 (estimated)
- Study startFeb 2013
- Primary completionOct 2015
- Study completionOct 2015
Why it stopped: under enrollment
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Other trials for Atrial FibrillationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Beth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 21 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Alfred Buxton, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
- Investigators
- Peter Zimetbaum, MD, Study director, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02664311
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2012P000419
- Status last verified
- Feb 2017
- First submitted
- 24 Sep 2014
- Last updated
- 10 Apr 2017
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Publication in scientific journal
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 10 Apr 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Randomized Comparison of the Use of JET and Conventional Ventilation in Pulmonary Vein Isolation
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02664311
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2012P000419
- Conditions
- Atrial Fibrillation
- Keywords
- Pulmonary Vein Isolation, Jet Ventilation, Atrial Fibrillation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- TerminatedReason stopped: under enrollment
- Enrolment
- 21 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Feb 2013
- Primary completion
- Oct 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- Oct 2015 (actual)
- First posted
- 27 Jan 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 10 Apr 2017
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This is a randomized prospective study comparing outcomes of pulmonary vein isolation using conventional and jet ventilation.
Detailed description
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in the United States today. Its incidence increases with age, and the prevalence approaches 10% in patients over 80 years old. Atrial fibrillation increases the risk of strokes, and in some patients is associated with worsened congestive heart failure and quality of life.
Catheter based radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation is an evolving and promising technology, and provides increased freedom from AF and improved quality of life compared with pharmacologic therapy. The technique involves placing catheters through the femoral veins into the heart, including the left atrium. Access to the left atrium is performed by transseptal puncture. Ablation of atrial fibrillation is performed by delivery of radiofrequency energy around the pulmonary veins in order to electrically dissociate them from the atria. This is thought to eliminate common triggers for atrial fibrillation, and therefore reduces the recurrence of AF in some patients.
The ablation procedure is done under general anesthesia and takes 4-8 hours. The first part of the procedure involves creating a computer generated three dimensional model of the left atrium. Once this model is created any patient movement will disrupt its accuracy and interfere with the physician's ability to accurately locate the catheter within the atrium.
The success of AF ablation is dependent upon the creation of an accurate three dimensional model, as well as physicians ability to perform durable lesions and achieve effective isolation of the pulmonary veins. Among the barriers to technical success are the patient's respiratory movement, which impairs catheter stability and the ability to maintain a stable catheter position against the atrium of the heart during ablation. Thus, minimizing respiratory movement during the procedure is critical to procedural outcome.
High frequency jet ventilation (HFJV) is a newer mode of ventilation that relies on very small tidal volumes delivered at high frequency (approximately 80-120 breaths/minute). Initially developed in the critical care setting, HFJV produces less respiratory motion due the small tidal volumes delivered. HFJV has been used successfully in procedures requiring increased stability of the field of interest, such as lithotripsy and percutaneous hepatic and renal radiofrequency ablation as well as stereotactic high single-dose irradiation of stage I non-small cell lung cancer and lung metastases. The initial report of the use of HFJV in radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of atrial fibrillation was by Goode et al in 2006. In that retrospective analysis, the use of HFJV was associated with a decrease in the number of ablation lesions, due to decreased number of attempts aborted by catheter dislodgement, as well as decreased variation in the size of the left atrium (LA) due to changes in pulmonary pressures associated with conventional ventilation. The incidence of complications was not significantly different between the HFJV and conventionally ventilated patients. More recently, Elkassabany et al. retrospectively reviewed their institutional experience with Jet ventilation, and found that the procedure could be performed safely.
HFJV is increasingly used and may improve procedure efficacy and safety, and may be cost effective. Data however are limited to small series and retrospective reviews. In order to better compare the efficacy and safety of HFJV to conventional ventilation, the investigators propose to conduct a prospective randomized study comparing the use of HJFV and conventional ventilation in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) at our institution. Our hypothesis is that HFJV, by allowing greater catheter stability and more accurate mapping of the left atrium will allow more effective radiofrequency lesion creation, leading to a quicker procedure, requiring fewer lesions and less ablation and fluoroscopy time with more effective isolation of the pulmonary veins with better short and long term control of AF.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional Ventilation | Placebo comparator | Device: Conventional ventilationPatients receiving conventional ventilation for the duration of this study |
| Jet Ventilation | Active comparator | Device: Jet VentilationPatients receiving Jet ventilation while under general anesthesia and during mapping and ablation in the left atrium |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 85 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- paroxysmal or persistent AF, first time PVI or left atrial procedure
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- repeat procedure
- any contraindications to receiving JET ventilation in the judgement of the treating anesthesiologist
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Jet VentilationPatients are randomized to receive either jet or conventional ventilation during this study | Device | Jet Ventilation |
| Conventional ventilationConventional ventilator - control arm | Device | Conventional Ventilation |
Primary outcome
Isolation Time
Time frame: Immediate post procedure
Comparison of Time (in Minutes) From Obtaining Access to Left Atrium Via Transseptal Catheterization to Demonstrated Isolation of All Pulmonary Veins - hypothesis is that with Jet ventilation there will be a shorter time to pulmonary vein isolation in comparison to conventional ventilation
2 secondary outcomes
Freedom From AF
Time frame: 1 year
Fluoroscopy Time
Time frame: Immediate post-procedure
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 10 Apr 2017.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Publication in scientific journal
Related trials for Atrial Fibrillation
Active, not recruiting
Horizon 360 Protocol for the Treatment of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation With the Sphere-360™ Catheter and Affera™ Mapping and Ablation System (Horizon 360)
Paroxysmal AF
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Concomitant Left Atrial Appendage Closure and Pulsed Field Ablation-Asia
Concomitant Procedures, Atrial Fibrillation
Active, not recruiting
CONVERGE Post-Approval Study (PAS)
Chronic Atrial Fibrillation
Recruiting
Early Closure of Left Atrial Appendage for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Ischemic Stroke Despite Anticoagulation Therapy
Ischemic Stroke, Atrial Fibrillation
RecruitingPhase 2
Safety in Adult Participants With Atrial Fibrillation Who Are Treated With Anticoagulation
Atrial Fibrillation (AF)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Peter Zimetbaum, MD study director
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Jet Ventilation and Conventional ventilation in people with Atrial Fibrillation, run by Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: stopped early, as of the sponsor's last update on 10 Apr 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 10 Apr 2017). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Isolation Time (time frame: Immediate post procedure). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 10 Apr 2017.