Comparing ablation methods for persistent atrial fibrillation

This study compares two procedures to treat persistent atrial fibrillation (an irregular heartbeat that lasts more than a week). It looks at whether a newer method (pulsed-field ablation) works better than the standard method (radiofrequency ablation), both combined with a chemical injection to improve treatment success.

This study compares two techniques for treating persistent atrial fibrillation: one uses standard anatomy-based ablation, and the other uses a special mapping system to guide the procedure. It aims to find which method works better for people who have not had prior ablation.

This study compares two types of ablation (a procedure that uses energy to fix irregular heartbeats) for people with persistent atrial fibrillation. It tests whether adding extra treatment to the back of the heart's left upper chamber helps improve outcomes compared to standard treatment alone.

This trial compares two minimally invasive heart procedures for persistent atrial fibrillation (a type of irregular heartbeat). The aim is to see which one is safer and more effective at restoring a normal heart rhythm.

This study compares a newer, faster type of ablation (high-power short-duration) with the standard approach for treating atrial fibrillation. The goal is to see which method is safer and more effective at restoring a normal heart rhythm.

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.