Skip to content

Wearable Technology to Reduce Risk of DVT and Increase Patient Compliance

Wearable Technology to Reduce Risk of DVT and Increase Patient Compliance

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04995601
Acronym
SBIR2
Enrollment
106
Registered
2021-08-09
Start date
2022-04-01
Completion date
2023-03-31
Last updated
2024-09-05

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

Conditions

Orthopedic Disorder

Brief summary

The primary purpose of this study is to conduct a multi-site clinical trial of the Recovery Force Movement and Compressions (RF MAC) System. The study is a randomized comparative study of DVT prophylaxis using either standard IPC (Group 1) or the RF MAC system (Group 2) in 300 patients after TJR surgery at two study sites: Tufts Medical Center (Boston, Massachusetts) and Eskenazi Hospital (Indianapolis, Indiana). This study is funded by a Phase II SBIR awarded to Recovery Force from the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (R44-HL132624-02).

Detailed description

DVT is the most feared complication of total joint replacement (TJR), with more than 300,000 total hip and 700,000 total knee replacements performed annually in the U.S. Current recommendations for postoperative DVT prophylaxis after TJR include anti-coagulant medications and/or intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) of the lower limb for a minimum of 10-14 days. Most current IPC devices are non-mobile, making early postoperative mobility, which is especially important in TJR patients, cumbersome and time-consuming. Upon hospital discharge, most patients go home on pharmacologic DVT prophylaxis. Even when at-home external compression therapy is prescribed (IPC or compression stockings), data suggests compliance rates as low as 10-50%. Recovery Force (RF) has produced the next generation of mechanical DVT prophylaxis, with a mobile device absent of tubes and pumps, stays in place during ambulation, is lightweight and comfortable for continuous wear, and is designed to improve compliance with recommended use. The hypothesis for Phase II is that IPC using the RF1400 will result in improved compliance, support early mobility and result in significantly higher functional mobility after TJR as compared to standard of care. The research team will conduct a randomized comparative study of DVT prophylaxis using either standard IPC (Group 1) or the RF1400 (Group 2) in 300 patients after TJR surgery. Dr. Karen Giuliano of the University of Massachusetts Amherst will serve as the overall PI for efforts associated with the study sites. This study will include an inpatient phase and an outpatient phase with patients at two clinical sites: Tufts Medical Center and Indiana University School of Medicine, with each site enrolling 150 patients (75 control/75 experimental). The overall goal of Phase II is to demonstrate that compliance with perscribed use, comfort, and ease-of-use is significantly higher with the RF1400 than with DVT prophylaxis using either standard IPC (in-hospital) or standard-of-care (at-home) in preparation for full commercialization in the TJR market during Phase III. The DVT therapy market is expected to hit $3.8B by 2021, and the US accounts for over 50% of the global market. With the current risk of bleeding from anticoagulant DVT prophylaxis at 5.6%, the commercial impact of this research is that improved patient compliance with the RF1400 DVT prophylaxis will improve postoperative mobility and provide an effective alternative to anticoagulation.

Interventions

DEVICERF Health MAC

The RF Health MAC is a novel device that is applied to the lower legs of patients that provides intermittent active compressions to the calf muscles which results in increased blood flow in the veins, moving blood towards the direction of the heart and reducing the risk of clot formation.

Sponsors

University of Massachusetts, Amherst
CollaboratorOTHER
Recovery Force LLC
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

This study will have 2 groups, intervention (RF MAC-group 2) and control (usual care for DVT prevention and mobility-group 1) in postoperative total joint replacement patients at two hospitals.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
40 Years to 85 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* adult patients (age 40-85) * first elective total hip replacement (THR) or first or second (opposite knee) elective total knee replacement (TKA * speak English * expected to have a hospital stay of two days or less * discharge to home from hospital (not a rehabilitation facility) * must be able to perform self-care * BMI between 18 and 39 * calf circumference between 11 and 24.5 inches

Exclusion criteria

* partial joint replacement, TJR revisions, emergency surgeries * calf deformities that would not allow proper fit for external compression device * non-ambulatory * clinically malnourished or frail/deconditioned * vulnerable patients (pregnant women, prisoners, homeless and cognitively impaired) * do not speak English

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Compliance to Prescribed Useday 1 postoperative joint replacementCompare patient compliance (percentage of prescribed use/24hr) between the standard of care sequential compression device and the Recovery Force Mobility and Compression (MAC) system in a group of total joint replacement patients.
Patient-reported Comfortat the end of 14-day data collection periodCompare patient-reported comfort (patient reported outcomes in the hospital-standard of care vs RF MAC-for overall comfort, where higher score is better device performance (5-pt Likert Scale; 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree) between the standard of care sequential compression device and the Recovery Force Mobility and Compression (MAC) system in a group of total joint replacement patients.
Patient-reported Ease-of-useat the end of 14-day data collection periodCompare patient-reported ease-of-use (using the System Usability Scale, with a range of 0-21, where higher score =higher ease of use) between the standard of care sequential compression device and the Recovery Force Mobility and Compression (MAC) system in a group of total joint replacement patients.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Standard of Care
Participants received DVT prophylaxis using standard intermittent pneumatic compression during postoperative care after total joint replacement.
49
Recovery Force MAC
Participants received DVT prophylaxis using the RF Health MAC during postoperative care after total joint replacement. RF Health MAC: The RF Health MAC is a novel device that is applied to the lower legs of patients that provides intermittent active compressions to the calf muscles which results in increased blood flow in the veins, moving blood towards the direction of the heart and reducing the risk of clot formation.
57
Total106

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicRecovery Force MACTotalStandard of Care
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
28 Participants47 Participants19 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
29 Participants59 Participants30 Participants
Age, Continuous64.4 years64.0 years63.6 years
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
57 Participants106 Participants49 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
57 participants106 participants49 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
29 Participants53 Participants24 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
28 Participants53 Participants25 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 490 / 57
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 490 / 57
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 490 / 57

Outcome results

Primary

Compliance to Prescribed Use

Compare patient compliance (percentage of prescribed use/24hr) between the standard of care sequential compression device and the Recovery Force Mobility and Compression (MAC) system in a group of total joint replacement patients.

Time frame: day 1 postoperative joint replacement

Population: Percent Compliance for Day 1 postop

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Standard of CareCompliance to Prescribed Use67.7 percentage of prescribed use/24hrStandard Deviation 40.1
Recovery Force MACCompliance to Prescribed Use83.3 percentage of prescribed use/24hrStandard Deviation 25.8
Primary

Patient-reported Comfort

Compare patient-reported comfort (patient reported outcomes in the hospital-standard of care vs RF MAC-for overall comfort, where higher score is better device performance (5-pt Likert Scale; 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree) between the standard of care sequential compression device and the Recovery Force Mobility and Compression (MAC) system in a group of total joint replacement patients.

Time frame: at the end of 14-day data collection period

Population: Patient reported outcomes in the hospital (Standard of care vs RF MAC) for overall comfort, where higher score is better device performance (5-pt Likert Scale; 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree).

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Standard of CarePatient-reported Comfort3.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.5
Recovery Force MACPatient-reported Comfort3.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.3
Primary

Patient-reported Ease-of-use

Compare patient-reported ease-of-use (using the System Usability Scale, with a range of 0-21, where higher score =higher ease of use) between the standard of care sequential compression device and the Recovery Force Mobility and Compression (MAC) system in a group of total joint replacement patients.

Time frame: at the end of 14-day data collection period

Population: Patient reported ease-of-use (using the System Usability Scale, with a range of 0-21, where higher score =higher ease of use) between the standard of care sequential compression device and the Recovery Force Mobility and Compression (MAC) system in a group of total joint replacement patients.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Standard of CarePatient-reported Ease-of-use2.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.4
Recovery Force MACPatient-reported Ease-of-use2.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.3

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