Skip to content

STandardized Ultra-conservative Or Physician-directed ICD Programming for Continuous Flow LVAD Support

STandardized Ultra-conservative Or Physician-directed ICD Programming for SHOCK Reduction Among Patients on Continuous Flow LVAD Support: a Randomized Controlled Trial (STOP SHOCK LVAD Study)

Status
Terminated
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04264182
Enrollment
11
Registered
2020-02-11
Start date
2020-02-03
Completion date
2022-04-04
Last updated
2022-06-08

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

Conditions

Heart Failure, Systolic, ICD, Left Ventricular Assist Device

Keywords

LVAD, ICD, Shock, Ventricular arrhythmia

Brief summary

This study will evaluate the utilization of an ultra-conservative programming strategy to reduce shocks for ventricular arrhythmias (VA) among patients with heart failure, an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and continuous flow (CF) left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Patients on LVAD support demonstrate unique hemodynamic tolerability of VA, and the role for ICDs among patients with newer generation CF LVADs remains less clear than the older generation devices. Prior studies have explored extended detection ICD programming to reduce unecessary or potentially avoidable shocks to patients. However, no prospective randomized study to-date has evaluated such programming strategies in the CF LVAD patient population. The study hypothesis is that ultra-conservative (UC) ICD programming will result in a reduction of shocks and an improvement in quality of life without increasing hospitalizations, syncope or death among patients on CF LVAD support, and the primary design is a 1:1 randomization between UC programming over standard, physician discretion programming.

Detailed description

The current International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) guidelines provide a class I recommendation for tachy-therapy re-activation in patients with ICDs undergoing LVAD implantation. However, these guidelines reflect a survival benefit observed in cohorts comprised primarily of older-generation pulsatile flow LVADs. While the overall VA prevalence in the LVAD population exceeds 50% with VA usually occurring \>200 beats per minute, VA are generally well-tolerated both hemodynamically and symptomatically. Observed LVAD flows do decrease during sustained VA but there are multiple case reports of LVAD patients remaining awake and asymptomatic despite hours of ventricular fibrillation and a large case series reported no deaths and rare syncope due to VA in CF LVAD patients. Contrary to guidelines, contemporary evaluations restricted to CF LVADs show no clear ICD survival benefit in single center studies nor a large, pooled meta-analysis. In fact, propensity-matched analyses of CF LVAD patients in the INTERMACS and UNOS registries have demonstrated increased mortality and more hospitalizations among patients with an active ICD and treated VA. It is unclear in the CF LVAD population whether ICD shocks themselves are harmful or rather identify a higher-acuity patient subgroup. In the general HF population, however, shocks have consistently been associated with worse outcomes. Shock reduction programming resulted in reduced mortality in the MADIT-RIT trial, suggesting shocks may be directly harmful and not only a marker of substrate. Therefore, the present study will evaluate whether ultra-conservative (UC) programming for ICDs can reduce shocks over standard (physician-discretion) programming among patients with heart failure on CF LVAD support. The model is 1:1 randomization between the two programming strategies for patients with newly implanted CF LVAD devices and a pre-existing ICD. They will be eligible for enrollment during their index hospitalization, and after discharge up to their first outpatient follow-up visit no later than 3 months post discharge. The primary endpoints will be any ICD shock, all-cause mortality, and syncope. The secondary endpoints will be time to first ICD shock, time to first ICD shock for VT/VF, quality of life questionnaire and hospitalizations, including for heart failure and ventricular arrhythmias. The principal exclusion criteria will be pediatric patients, or those without a functional ICD system. Standard of care follow-up will continue thru 24 months.

Interventions

Re-programming of the ICD device for VA detection (see above)

Sponsors

The Cleveland Clinic
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

Prospective. Randomized control trial.

Eligibility

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

Inclusion criteria

* Pre-existing ICD * LVAD placement

Exclusion criteria

* Non-functional ICD system * Uncontrolled ventricular arrhythmias within 7 days of enrollment (defined as VT/VF \>30 seconds and/or causing hemodynamic instability and/or symptoms of pre-syncope or syncope)

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
ICD shock deliveryUp to 24 monthsNumber of patients with ICD shock delivery
MortalityUp to 24 MonthsIncidence of all-cause death
SyncopeUp to 24 MonthsIndividual occurrence of loss of consciousness

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Time to first ICD shockUp to 24 MonthsInterval of time from baseline to first appropriate/non-appropriate ICD shock
Time to first ICD shock for VT/VF (appropriate shock)Up to 24 MonthsInterval of time from baseline to first ICD shock for VT/VF (appropriate shock)
Standard INTERMACS surveyUp to 24 MonthsQuality of life measured by INTERMACS survey scored from 1 to 7
HospitalizationUp to 24 MonthsIndividual occurrence of hospitalization

Countries

United States

Outcome results

None listed

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