TRAVERSE: Transseptal vs Retrograde Aortic Ventricular Entry

What is the Purpose of this Study?

The purpose of this study is to compare 2 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 2 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 will have the retrograde approach (Method 2) performed in the ablation procedure.

Eligibility

Men and women ≥ 18 years of age
Planned/scheduled endocardial ventricular tachycardia (VT) or premature ventricular contraction (PVC) catheter ablation procedure
For this patient, 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
Life expectancy of at least 1 year

Inclusion Criteria:

Men and women ≥ 18 years of age
Planned/scheduled endocardial ventricular tachycardia (VT) or premature ventricular contraction (PVC) catheter ablation procedure
For this patient, 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
Life expectancy of at least 1 year
Willing and able to undergo pre- and post-ablation MRIs
Willing and able to return and comply with scheduled follow up visits (through the 6 month follow-up)
Willing and able to provide written informed consent

Exclusion Criteria:

Planned epicardial ablation that would include a coronary angiogram (during the index ventricular tachycardia (VT) or premature ventricular contraction (PVC) catheter ablation procedure)
Any contraindication to MRI (as defined by the institution performing the MRI)
Clinical contraindication to a retrograde aortic approach as determined by the treating physician, including:
Severe aortic stenosis
Mechanical aortic valve
Clinical contraindication to a transseptal puncture as determined by the treating physician, including:
Severe Mitral valve stenosis
Mechanical Mitral valve
Atrial septal defect (ASD) or Patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure device that would preclude a transseptal puncture
Mitraclip or Alfieri mitral valve repair that would preclude a transseptal puncture
Planned or known need to perform either a retrograde aortic approach or transseptal approach (such as to target another site during the same procedure)
Inability to speak, read, and write in the English language at a 6th grade level (required for the Neurocognitive Function Testing)
Current mental impairment or other diagnosis which precludes accurate assessment of neurocognitive function or which may not allow patient to understand the nature, significance and scope of the study
Inability to perform neurocognitive function testing after > 24 hours free of sedating medications

Show less

Where can I participate?

Beverly

More about this Clinical Trial

What is the full name of this clinical trial?

Transseptal vs Retrograde Aortic Ventricular Entry to Reduce Systemic Emboli Multi-center 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 and/or premature ventricular contractions

Study Details

Disease Type/Condition

Cardiac Surgery

Principal Investigator

Ehdaie, Ashkan

Age Group

Adult

Phase

N/A

IRB Number

STUDY00000523

ClinicalTrials.gov ID

NCT03946072

Key Eligibility

ClinicalTrials.gov

How do I learn more about this study?

clinicaltrials@cshs.org