Plain-English translation of NCT07141745 on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Source last updated · Translation generated · How we translate trials
This study doesn't follow the usual testing phases — it may be an observational study or a different type of research.
This trial compares two ways to treat atrial fibrillation that has come back after an initial ablation procedure. One approach uses pulsed field ablation, a newer electrical technique; the other uses radiofrequency ablation, the current standard treatment. Both methods use 3D imaging to guide the doctor during the procedure, and the study will measure which approach works better, is safer, and takes less time.
About one-third of patients experience atrial fibrillation returning within a year after their first ablation treatment. When this happens, they need a repeat procedure, which is more complicated than the first one. This trial exists to find out whether the newer pulsed field ablation technique might work better than the standard radiofrequency method for these repeat procedures.
You likely qualify if…
You likely don't qualify if…
If you join this study, you will be randomly assigned to receive your repeat ablation procedure using either pulsed field ablation or radiofrequency ablation, both guided by 3D imaging of your heart. The procedure itself is similar to what you may have experienced before—your doctor will use a catheter (thin tube) to access your heart and treat the areas where the irregular rhythm is returning. The study team will follow up with you to monitor your recovery and check whether your heart rhythm stays normal over time.
AI-generated summary from trial data · Jun 5, 2026 · Not medical advice
Poland