What the trial was testing
The PULSED AF enrolled 421 patients with atrial fibrillation. The study was sponsored by Medtronic Cardiac Ablation Solutions and tracked outcomes across the full group of patients who matched the trial's eligibility profile.
It was an early-stage trial — researchers are still confirming safety and getting an early look at how well the treatment works. Trials at this stage are designed to produce evidence regulators and physicians can act on — not just observations to follow up later.
What the results showed
The treatment successfully isolated 100% of targeted heart areas in all 38 patients.
Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology · 2022 · NCT04198701
These findings — that all problem areas in the heart were successfully treated — were published in the Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology and represent the headline result of the study.
Researchers tracked outcomes across 421 patients enrolled in the trial. The result was consistent enough across the group that the team felt confident reporting it.
What this means for patients
For patients with atrial fibrillation, this result changes the calculus on what to ask their care team about. Whether it changes day-to-day care depends on factors like disease subtype, prior treatments, and where the patient is in their care journey.
What you can do now
This was an early-stage study testing safety and feasibility. The device is not yet widely available. If you have atrial fibrillation, talk with your cardiologist about proven ablation options and whether clinical trials using pulsed field technology might be appropriate for you.
Eligibility for the treatments mentioned above depends on specific test results and clinical history. Bring this summary, the trial name, and your most recent labs or pathology report to your next visit.
Open atrial fibrillation trials
Anteroposterior Versus Anterolateral Electrode Position for Electrical Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation
Atrial fibrillation is the most common heart rhythm disorder (arrhythmia) worldwide. Nearly 40 million people are affected by atrial fibrillation worldwide, and this number is expected to increase by over 50% by 2050. Atrial fibrillation can cause strokes, heart attacks, heart failure, poor quality of life and even death. Almost half a million deaths worldwide are expected to be related to atrial fibrillation by 2050, and many billions of dollars are spent on atrial fibrillation related healthcare in North America every year. We believe health outcomes for patients with atrial fibrillation, and healthcare costs associated with treating atrial fibrillation could be improved by optimizing existing treatments for atrial fibrillation and maximizing the likelihood of restoring normal heart rhythm. This allows them to benefit from lower stroke risk, better heart function, fewer symptoms and increased quality of life. Restoring normal sinus rhythm earlier prevents atrial fibrillation from causing permanent structural damage to the heart that in turn, makes atrial fibrillation intractable. Furthermore, patients in whom initial attempts to control atrial fibrillation are unsuccessful frequently require more medications or invasive catheter ablation procedures which are costly and carry substantial risk. Electrical cardioversion is the main way physicians restore normal heart rhythm. In this procedure, the heart is "shocked" back into normal rhythm using two electrodes on the chest. Done correctly, this procedure is safe and effective. Many things are known about electrical cardioversion, for example, the best type and amount of electricity to use. What we don't know is the best position of the electrodes on the chest and whether applying direct, physical pressure to the electrodes makes cardioversion more successful. Our prior research suggests that improving positioning and applying pressure may improve cardioversion, but this finding needs to be verified with a rigorous, dedicated trial. This study will demonstrate whether front-to-back, or front-to-side placement of the electrodes is more effective for electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. We will also demonstrate whether manually applying pressure to the electrodes makes cardioversion more effective. Should our trial demonstrate a benefit for these techniques, we expect them to be universally applied around the world. Because hundreds of thousands of cardioversions are done each year, even small increases in cardioversion success means thousands fewer patients progress to needing more medications or invasive procedures to manage their atrial fibrillation. We will study consenting adults presenting for non-urgent cardioversion of their atrial fibrillation. After explaining the study to participants and gaining their consent, we will randomly assign them to front-to-side or front-to-back electrode placement. Patients who remain in atrial fibrillation after the first shock will randomly receive either manual pressure or not. We will compare the success of cardioversion for front-side versus front-back electrode placement, and for manual pressure versus none. We will evaluate success by using electrocardiograms to assess for restoration of the heart rhythm back to normal. We hypothesize that anterolateral electrode positioning is superior to anteroposterior electrode positioning. We also hypothesize that manual pressure is effective relative to none, when applied in patients who have had one unsuccessful shock already.
Natural History of Atrial Fibrillation-Induced Tricuspid Valve Remodeling in the Absence of Significant Tricuspid Regurgitation: A Three-Dimensional Echocardiographic Study
This is a prospective, observational, multicenter study aimed at characterizing tricuspid valve remodeling in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) without significant tricuspid regurgitation (TR), in relation to AF burden progression.