Skip to content

Clinical Evaluation on Advanced Resynchronization

Clinical Evaluation on Advanced Resynchronization

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00658203
Enrollment
310
Registered
2008-04-14
Start date
2005-11-30
Completion date
2008-02-29
Last updated
2008-04-14

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Cardiomyopathy, Heart Failure

Keywords

CRT-P, PEA, Severe Heart Failure (NYHA Class III or IV), Cardiomyopathy of any etiology, Sinus rhythm, Reduced Left-Ventricular Ejection Fraction, LVEDD>30 mm/m2, QRS Duration: > 150 ms or > 120 ms, Aortic Pre-Ejection Delay > 140 ms, Interventricular Mechanical Delay > 40 ms, Delayed activation of postero-lateral Left Ventricular wall, Optimal and stable pharmacological treatment

Brief summary

The aim of the study is to compare clinical benefits of the cardiac resynchronisation (CRT) achieved by the PEA optimised pacing configuration and a CRT optimised by standard clinical procedure. PEA optimised configuration (PEA-CRT) is obtained, during patient's follow-up, using the Peak Endocardial Acceleration sensor features onboard the device.

Detailed description

The study is a prospective, multicentre, controlled and randomised clinical investigation, with two single-blinded arms. The objective of the study is to compare the clinical benefits of Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy (CRT) optimised by automatic PEA sensor features (PEA-CRT), with those obtained by standard optimisation procedure (STD-CRT). The patient candidate for inclusion in the study has a severe chronic Heart Failure, indicated for the implantation of a Biventricular pacing system according to updated ESC guidelines (2005). All patients included in the study will be followed-up for 1 year; patient's follow-ups are scheduled during hospitalisation, at one month, 3 months, 6 months and one year after implantation.

Interventions

DEVICENew Living CHF

PEA CRT optimization

Sponsors

LivaNova
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

The patient candidate for inclusion in the study must be indicated for implantation of a Biventricular pacing system, with the following clinical conditions: * Severe Heart Failure (NYHA Class III or IV) * Cardiomyopathy of any etiology * Sinus rhythm * Reduced Left-Ventricular Ejection Fraction * Left-Ventricular End Diastolic Diameter greater than or equal to 30 mm/m2 (LVEDD\>30 mm/m2) * QRS Duration: * \> 150 ms or * \> 120 ms and documented Mechanical Dissynchrony (by ECHO) meeting two out of three of the following criteria: * Aortic Pre-Ejection Delay \> 140 ms * Interventricular Mechanical Delay \> 40 ms * Delayed activation of postero-lateral Left Ventricular wall (after mitral valve opening) * Optimal and stable (1 month before inclusion) pharmacological treatment, including, if tolerated, Beta Blockers, Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme (ACE) Inhibitors or ACE Inhibitor substitutes, Spironolactone, and diuretics

Exclusion criteria

Any patient who has one of the following characteristics will be excluded from the study: * ICD indication (Life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias) * Persistent or permanent Atrial Arrhythmia without possibility to restore sinus rhythm (spontaneous termination, anti-tachycardia pacing, pharmacological or electrical cardioversion). * Patient already implanted with a conventional pacemaker device * Myocardial infarction within the last three months * Heart surgery, or revascularization within the last three months, or expected * Heart surgery refused because of co-morbidity factors * Included in transplantation list * Already enrolled in other study * Life expectancy less than 1 year * Pregnancy * Age less than 18 * Forfeiture of freedom or under guardianship * Not able to understand the aim of the study and its procedures * Refusing to cooperate

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
The primary endpoint will be evaluated at 1 year (M12), in term of improved, unchanged or worsened patient's conditions, with a composite analysis of NYHA class evolution, heart-failure-related hospitalisations and Quality of Life evaluation.12 months

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
PEA is an index of the patients' clinical status and allows to predict acute HF episode in both arms.12 months
Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of NYHA12 months
Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Cardiovascular mortality12 months
Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Heart Failure Quality Of Life (EuroQoL-5D) score12 months
Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of BNP dosage12 months
Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Number and duration of heart-failure-related patient's hospitalisations, during the study period.12 months
Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Left Ventricular End Diastolic Diameter12 months
Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Left Ventricular End Systolic Diameter12 months
Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction12 months
Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Left Pre-Ejection Interval12 months
PEA-CRT optimisation is at least effective as the standard optimisation in term of efficacy of the therapy and patients' quality of life.12 months
Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Total Duration of Left Systole12 months
Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of E velocity12 months
Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of A velocity12 months
Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Ventricular spike-Mitral valve closure interval12 months
Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Ventricular spike-Mitral valve opening interval12 months
Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Mitral Valve regurgitation.12 months
Time spent to achieve the CRT optimal configuration during each follow-up12 months
PEA monitoring and prognostic relevance correlating the PEA diagnostic trends with the parameters used to asses the efficacy of the therapy and patients' quality of life (NYHA class, mortality, HF-hospitalisation, EuroQoL-5D score, BNP dosage, Echo12 months
(LVEF) comparing the changes Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in the two arms with an intermediate analysis at 6 months done by a Core Centre.6 and 12 months
Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Right Pre-Ejection Interval12 months

Countries

France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026