TRAVERSE: Transseptal vs Retrograde Aortic Ventricular Entry
Condition: Ventricular tachycardia
Key Inclusion Criteria:
- At least 18 years old
- Planned/scheduled endocardial ventricular tachycardia (VT) or premature ventricular contraction (PVC) catheter ablation procedure
- The current plan of the operator must be to pursue a catheter ablation target in the left ventricular endocardium that can be accessed by either a transseptal puncture or retrograde aortic approach
Key Exclusion Criteria:
- Planned epicardial ablation that would include a coronary angiogram
- Any contraindication to MRI
- Clinical contraindication to a retrograde aortic approach
Transseptal vs Retrograde Aortic Ventricular Entry to Reduce Systemic Emboli Multicenter Comparative Effectiveness Randomized Clinical Trial to Assess a Transseptal Approach to Left Ventricular Ablation Compared to a Retrograde Aortic Approach to Prevent Cerebral Emboli and Neurocognitive Decline in Adults with Ventricular Tachycardia (VT) and/or Premature Ventricular Contractions (PVCs) (IRB no. 00000523)
The purpose of this study is to compare two methods that are each routinely performed as standards of care (a transseptal approach versus a retrograde approach) of performing a procedure, called ablation, to treat abnormal heart rhythm. The study aims to determine the effects that the two methods may have on preventing brain problems.
Participants will still have the medical procedure they are already planning to have (catheter ablation) to help treat abnormal heart rhythm. They will be randomly assigned to 1 of 2 study groups; one group will have the transseptal approach (Method 1), and the other group will have the retrograde approach (Method 2) performed in the ablation procedure.