We are updating the design of this site. Learn more.
Show more
ClinicalTrials.gov
ClinicalTrials.gov Menu

Cryoablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation

This study has been terminated.
Sponsor:
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT00238823
First Posted: October 14, 2005
Last Update Posted: May 23, 2007
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.
Information provided by:
Children's Healthcare of Atlanta
  Purpose
The purpose of this retrospective study is to describe why and when we used cryo and why we crossed over when we used both RFA and cryo. It is also to determine if there is some predictor that would make us say one patient would be better served with one technique than another and to describe our overall acute success rate and then our 6-month recurrence rate with cryo ablation and compare it to our known success rate with RFA.

Condition
Congenital Disorders

Study Type: Observational
Study Design: Observational Model: Defined Population
Observational Model: Natural History
Time Perspective: Longitudinal
Time Perspective: Retrospective
Official Title: A Review and Comparison of Cryoablation and Radiofrequency Ablation in Children

Further study details as provided by Children's Healthcare of Atlanta:

Estimated Enrollment: 50
Study Start Date: January 2004
Estimated Study Completion Date: December 2004
Detailed Description:

Cryotherapy (Cryo) is a new ablation energy source used instead of the radiofrequency (RFA) method for ablation of septal pathways. In the past year, we have used cryo approximately 50 times, however 50% of the cryo procedures crossed over from RFA to cryo or cryo to RFA. It appears to me that cryo use should be as an adjunct therapy to RFA instead of replacement of RFA.

I would like to describe why and when we used cryo and why we crossed over when we used both RFA and cryo. I would like to determine if there is some predictor that would make us say one patient would be better served with one technique than another. I would also describe our overall acute success rate and then our 6-month recurrence rate with cryo ablation and compare it to our known success rate with RFA. All of this can be done with a chart review.

This will be done through a retrospective study.

  Eligibility

Information from the National Library of Medicine

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.


Ages Eligible for Study:   Child, Adult, Senior
Sexes Eligible for Study:   All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   No
Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

  • charts between January 1 and 2004 to December 31, 2004
  • pediatric population
  • those who were ablated

Exclusion Criteria:

  Contacts and Locations
Information from the National Library of Medicine

To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.

Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT00238823


Locations
United States, Georgia
Children's Healthcare of Atlanta
Atlanta, Georgia, United States, 30322
Sponsors and Collaborators
Children's Healthcare of Atlanta
Investigators
Principal Investigator: Margaret Strieper, DO Sibley Heart Center
  More Information

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00238823     History of Changes
Other Study ID Numbers: 05-108
First Submitted: October 12, 2005
First Posted: October 14, 2005
Last Update Posted: May 23, 2007
Last Verified: May 2007

Keywords provided by Children's Healthcare of Atlanta:
cryoablation
radiofrequency ablation
pediatrics
cardiology