← Eichor
Study identifier: NCT06573853 Synced from ClinicalTrials.gov · July 28, 2026
● Recruiting

Outcomes of PFA Vs. RFA for Patients with PSVT: a Retrospective and Propensity Score Matching Study

Condition: Paroxysmal Supraventricular Tachycardia · Catheter Ablation  ·  Sponsor: Caijie Shen

PhaseN/A
Planned participants428
Who can joinAll sexes, 18 Years to 80 Years
Healthy volunteersNo

About this study

The goal of this retrospective study is to compare the long-term follow-up outcomes of pulses field ablation (PFA) Vs. radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the patients with paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT). The main question to answer is: Does the PFA was more effecient and safer that RFA for treatment of PSVT during procedure and after 1-year follow-up? Researchers will compare the acute and long-term efficiency and safety between PFA and RFA. 1. Recieved PFA or RFA 1 year ago 2. Finish the visit to the clinic at 1, 3, 6, 12 months for examinations and blood testings 3. Patients recieved PFA and PFA under propensity matched comparison according to differen variety of PSVT

This description comes directly from the study's public registry record.

Talk to the study team

Caijie Shen, MD,PhD  ·  8615258258126  ·  shenzihai1101@126.com

Always discuss trial participation with your own doctor first.

Locations (1)

the First Affiliated Hospital of Ningbo UniversityNingbo, Zhejiang, ChinaRecruiting

Follow this study

Get one email when the public record changes — results posted, or the study's status changes. Nothing else, ever.

We email about this public record only. Unsubscribe anytime with one click. Never medical advice.

Is this your study? This page was generated automatically from the public registry record. Sponsors can claim it — free — to add branding and verified contact routing. Claim this page →

This page is independently generated by Eichor from the public ClinicalTrials.gov record and re-synced daily. It is not the sponsor's official website unless claimed. Nothing here is medical advice; eligibility is always determined by the study team — talk to your own doctor first.

Source record: clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06573853