MedTrace Logo

Anti-arrhythmic Therapy vs Catheter Ablation as First Line Treatment for AICD Shock Prevention

NCT02114528 · Status: TERMINATED · Phase: PHASE4 · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 3

Last updated 2026-05-04

No results posted yet for this study

Summary

The purpose of this study is to determine whether catheter based ablation is better than conventional anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy for reducing recurrent shocks in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). The second purpose of the study is to determine the safety of catheter-based ablation and the effect on quality of life of patients.

The study hypothesis is that catheter ablation is superior to AAD therapy in preventing recurrent ventricular arrhythmia in such subjects. This is a pilot trial which will provide data regarding recruitment potential and the feasibility of conducting a larger trial.

Conditions

  • Ventricular Tachycardia
  • Ventricular Arrhythmia

Interventions

DRUG

Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy

Either one or more of the following antiarrhythmic drugs: sotalol, mexiletine, procainamide, or amiodarone.

PROCEDURE

Catheter ablation

Ventricular tachycardia catheter ablation.

Sponsors & Collaborators

  • Ottawa Heart Institute Research Corporation

    lead OTHER

Principal Investigators

  • Girish Nair, MD · Ottawa Heart Institute Research Corporation

Study Design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Model
PARALLEL

Eligibility

Min Age
18 Years
Max Age
85 Years
Sex
ALL
Healthy Volunteers
No

Timeline & Regulatory

Start
2014-10-31
Primary Completion
2015-11-30
Completion
2015-11-30

Countries

  • Canada

Study Locations

More Related Trials

Read the full study record

This page highlights key information. For complete eligibility criteria, study locations, investigator contacts, and the full protocol, visit the original record on ClinicalTrials.gov.

View NCT02114528 on ClinicalTrials.gov