Comparing two cardioversion methods for persistent AFib

This trial tests whether one ablation approach works better than another for paroxysmal (intermittent) atrial fibrillation by targeting the heart’s “triggers” and “substrate” (where the rhythm problem is). If you qualify, you’ll be randomly assigned to one of two ablation energy methods during a pulmonary vein isolation procedure.

This trial tests whether using a specific “shock energy” during electrical cardioversion works safely and effectively for people with persistent atrial fibrillation. You might be eligible if your cardioversion is planned (not an emergency) and your doctors determine you can safely take blood thinners.

This study looks at how a heart rhythm procedure (cardioversion) affects quality of life in people with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). It may help you understand whether a specific approach can improve day-to-day symptoms and well-being after treatment.

This study compares different ways of doing a procedure called catheter ablation to treat a type of atrial fibrillation that lasts longer than 7 days. They want to see if adding an extra step to the standard treatment helps more than just doing the standard treatment alone. If you join, you will be randomly assigned to one of the three treatment groups.

This study compares two treatments for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) that lasts more than 7 days but less than 2 years: electrical cardioversion (a shock to reset your heart rhythm) versus catheter ablation (using radio waves to fix the heart's electrical pathways). It aims to find which option works better for patients like you.

This trial compares two different ways of delivering pulsed field ablation—a newer, targeted energy that zaps abnormal heart tissue—for people with atrial fibrillation. It aims to see if a single broader application works as well as a more focused, two-step approach, and it may help you feel better if you have symptoms from this irregular heartbeat.