Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT00658203

Clinical Evaluation on Advanced Resynchronization

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.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Phase 4

Primary location

CH Albi, Albi, France

Loading trial locations.

About this study

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.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

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

Treatment and study plan

New Living CHF

Device

PEA CRT optimization

Primary outcomes

  1. 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.

    Time frame: 12 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. PEA-CRT optimisation is at least effective as the standard optimisation in term of efficacy of the therapy and patients' quality of life.

    Time frame: 12 months

  2. PEA is an index of the patients' clinical status and allows to predict acute HF episode in both arms.

    Time frame: 12 months

  3. Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of NYHA

    Time frame: 12 months

  4. Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Cardiovascular mortality

    Time frame: 12 months

  5. Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Heart Failure Quality Of Life (EuroQoL-5D) score

    Time frame: 12 months

  6. Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of BNP dosage

    Time frame: 12 months

  7. 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.

    Time frame: 12 months

  8. Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Left Ventricular End Diastolic Diameter

    Time frame: 12 months

  9. Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Left Ventricular End Systolic Diameter

    Time frame: 12 months

  10. Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

    Time frame: 12 months

  11. Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Left Pre-Ejection Interval

    Time frame: 12 months

  12. Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Right Pre-Ejection Interval

    Time frame: 12 months

  13. Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Total Duration of Left Systole

    Time frame: 12 months

  14. Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of E velocity

    Time frame: 12 months

  15. Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of A velocity

    Time frame: 12 months

  16. Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Ventricular spike-Mitral valve closure interval

    Time frame: 12 months

  17. Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Ventricular spike-Mitral valve opening interval

    Time frame: 12 months

  18. Efficacy of the therapy comparing the two arms in terms of Mitral Valve regurgitation.

    Time frame: 12 months

  19. Time spent to achieve the CRT optimal configuration during each follow-up

    Time frame: 12 months

  20. 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, Echo

    Time frame: 12 months

  21. (LVEF) comparing the changes Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in the two arms with an intermediate analysis at 6 months done by a Core Centre.

    Time frame: 6 and 12 months

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

LivaNova

Industry

Registry information

Important dates

Study start
2005
Primary completion
2008
Study completion
2008
First posted
Apr 14, 2008
Registry last updated
Apr 14, 2008

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.