Tiny trial tests ablation vs. pills for heart shock prevention

NCT ID NCT02114528

Terminated Disease control Sponsor: Ottawa Heart Institute Research Corporation Source: ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

First seen Jun 24, 2026 · Last updated Jun 27, 2026 · Updated 1 time

Summary

This study compared two approaches to reduce shocks in people with an implantable defibrillator (ICD) who had dangerous heart rhythms. One group received antiarrhythmic drugs, the other had a catheter ablation procedure. The trial was a small pilot with only 3 participants and was terminated early, so no firm conclusions can be drawn.

What this could mean

Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only — not medical advice or a prediction.

Active substance: Antiarrhythmic drugs (sotalol, mexiletine, procainamide, amiodarone) or catheter ablation
What this could lead to: If successful, this could show that catheter ablation is a better first-line option than drugs for preventing painful shocks from an ICD.
What could go wrong: This was a very small pilot trial (only 3 participants) that was terminated early, so results are not reliable. Both treatments have risks, including procedure complications or drug side effects.

This is an AI summary of the original study and may miss details. Read our disclaimer.

Get updates

Get notified about this study

Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for VENTRICULAR ARRHYTHMIA are added.

Our safety recommendation!

By submitting, you agree to our Terms of use

Conditions

The condition(s) this trial relates to.

ventricular tachycardia

As listed by the trial registrant

The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.

VENTRICULAR ARRHYTHMIA VENTRICULAR TACHYCARDIA

Contacts and locations

Locations

University of Ottawa Heart Institute

Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4W7, Canada

More trials for these conditions

Other studies related to the condition(s) this trial covers.