Skip to content

Virtual E-health System for Pacemakers

Virtual Integrated Reliable Transformative User-driven E-health System for Pacemakers

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03636230
Acronym
VIRTUES PM
Enrollment
848
Registered
2018-08-17
Start date
2020-09-15
Completion date
2026-06-30
Last updated
2026-09-03

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

Conditions

Pacemaker

Brief summary

While remote monitoring (RM) technology is currently available and has permitted surveillance and device assessment from any patient location, the use has been inconsistent in Canada, where only 8500 out of a potential 120 000 patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are enrolled in this program. This technology is in widespread use worldwide for all CIEDs but in Canada, it is utilized primarily for implantable defibrillators, but not pacemakers. Whereas most of the trials were designed to evaluate the efficacy of RM in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients, in the pacemaker (PM) population, there has been work performed already to demonstrate an increase in detection of frequency of adverse clinical events and a reduction in reaction time to those events by RM. Based on all the available literature, it appears that RM benefits both patients and healthcare systems. Overall, studies have demonstrated that RM can be used safely in all device patient-populations, with the exception of pacemaker-dependent patients. There have been no studies that have evaluated RM only follow up, nor have there been any studies evaluating pacemaker-dependent patients. This study that will safely assess the use of RM only, with in-clinic visits when necessary, that uses the patient-centered electronic platform developed by the Cardiac Arrhythmia Network of Canada (CANet) to perform PM follow up safely, in a more cost-effective manner.

Detailed description

This is a Canadian multicenter randomized controlled trial to assess remote patient management. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion, stratified by pacemaker dependence and by center to either remote patient management of standard of care. Remote patient management (intervention group): * Patients will be followed by remote monitoring only. Transmissions will occur at six monthly intervals, with no in-clinic visits. If there is an actionable event on the remote transmission, patients will be seen at their closest community device clinic. The proposed intervention would eliminate any routine visits. * Newly implanted pacemaker patients will be seen after the initial implant at the hub site, within 48 hours and then within 3 months to optimize programming for subsequent RM visits. Thereafter, all follow-up will occur through remote monitoring every six months. Unscheduled remote transmissions may also occur. Using a combination of remote monitoring, and novel technology, VIRTUES, patients will be managed outside of the clinic. * Patients will be provided with real-time knowledge of success of their remote transmission and the status of the remote through a web-based portal called VIRTUES. * Virtual patient record - all patient information in the intervention arm will be contained within an information cloud that will be accessible by patients; access to their own data may be granted by the patient themselves to permit delivery of care remotely, and to permit after hours follow up to be performed by the on call personnel. Standard of care (comparison group): The standard arm will be required to have in-clinic visits at yearly intervals. These patients would not have access to the virtual patient cloud or to remote monitoring. Pacemaker programming: All patients in both arms will undergo programming as per the ASSERT II protocol (previously published) to optimize pacemaker parameters and detection of atrial and ventricular high rate episodes.

Interventions

DEVICERemote Monitoring

Remote Monitoring only + VIRTUES

OTHERStandard of care

In-Clinic visits only

Sponsors

Ratika Parkash
Lead SponsorOTHER
Cardiac Arrhythmia Network of Canada
CollaboratorOTHER
Medtronic
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
Abbott
CollaboratorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

Open label, 1:1 randomized trial, stratified by site and pacemaker dependence

Eligibility

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

Inclusion criteria

* Patients with a Medtronic or Abbott pacemaker capable of remote monitoring. * Able to provide consent. * Age \>/= 18 years

Exclusion criteria

* No access to a family physician or general practioner * Participation in the RPM CIED pilot study * Unreliable automated capture verification function by the device in pacemaker-dependent patients

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Cost effectiveness18 monthsCost comparison between groups (VIRTUES strategy versus Standard of Care). Analysis will take the form of a cost utility analysis with cost effectiveness assessed in terms of the incremental cost per quality life year (QALY)
Time to major adverse cardiac event (MACE)18 monthsIncludes: death, stroke, hospitalization for a cardiovascular cause (unplanned hospitalization with an overnight stay in hospital) due to one of the following causes: acute coronary syndrome, presyncope / syncope, transient ischemic attack / stroke, ventricular arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, flutter, pulmonary embolism / deep vein thrombosis /systemic embolism, worsening congestive heart failure including pulmonary edema or dyspnea of cardiac origin.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Quality of Life - Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS)18 monthsThe FPAS produces scores that range from 0-100, where higher scores indicate increased device acceptance.
Quality of Life - Florida Shock Anxiety Scale (FSAS)18 monthsThe FSAS produces scores that range from 10-50. Higher scores signify increased shock anxiety.
Quality of Life - Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ)18 monthsIndividual item analysis will be used in this study. The personal control score is the response to item 3. The treatment control score is the response to item 4. Illness concern is measured by item 6. This reflects a combination of emotional and cognitive representations. Scores on these individual items range from 0-10 where higher scores on personal and treatment concern are reflected in higher scores. Higher scores on illness concern are reflected in higher scores.
Number of patients with device-related ER visits18 monthsRate of device-related ER visits (\<24 hours)
Number of patients with syncope18 monthsRate of syncope
Number of patients with atrial fibrillation18 monthsRate of AF greater than 6 minutes detected by the pacemaker
Number of patients experiencing ventricular arrhythmia events18 monthsRate of ventricular arrhythmia episodes detected by the pacemaker
Quality of Life - Short Form (SF36)18 monthsThe SF-36 consists of eight scaled scores, which are the weighted sums of the questions in their section. Each scale is directly transformed into a 0-100 scale on the assumption that each question carries equal weight. The lower the score the more disability. The eight sections are: vitality, physical functioning, bodily pain, general health perceptions, physical role functioning, emotional role functioning, social role functioning, and mental health

Countries

Canada

Contacts

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORRatika Parkash, MD FRCPC

Nova Scotia Health Authority

Outcome results

None listed

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