Heart rhythm showdown: ablation vs. electric shock for AF

NCT ID NCT06096246

First seen Jun 26, 2026 ยท Last updated Jun 26, 2026

Summary

This study compares two procedures for treating persistent atrial fibrillation (AF): catheter ablation (which scars tiny areas in the heart to block faulty signals) and DC cardioversion (an electric shock to restore normal rhythm). Researchers want to see which one better prevents AF from coming back. About 208 adults with persistent AF lasting less than 2 years will be randomly assigned to one of the two procedures and monitored with an implanted loop recorder.

What this could mean

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

Active substance
Catheter ablation (pulmonary vein isolation) and DC cardioversion
What this could lead to
If ablation proves superior, it could become the preferred first-line procedure for persistent atrial fibrillation, reducing recurrence and the need for repeat procedures.
What could go wrong
This is a relatively small (208 participants) randomized trial. Ablation is an invasive procedure with risks like bleeding, infection, or heart damage, and results may not apply to all AF patients.

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 CARDIAC ARRHYTHMIA are added.

Our safety recommendation!

By submitting, you agree to our Terms of use

Conditions

The condition(s) this trial relates to.

As listed by the trial registrant

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

Contacts and locations

Locations

  • Barts Heart Centre

    RECRUITING

    London, EC1A 7BE, United Kingdom

More trials for these conditions

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