Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT03587064

Comparison of CRT-D and CRT-DX Systems (CRT-NEXT)

The principal objective is to test non-inferiority of the CRT-DX system as compared to a conventional CRT-D system, in terms of the combined endpoint of mortality, hospitalizations due cardiovascular causes, any complication leading to loss of lead functionality, in the subset of patients without evidence of sinus dysfunction on optimal therapy.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

AOU Ospedali Riuniti Ancona, Ancona, Italy

Loading trial locations.

About this study

Resting heart rate is strongly associated with incident worsening Heart Failure (HF) and mortality. Current devices for cardiac resynchronization (CRT-D) normally provide atrio-ventricular (AV) sequential pacing modes during resynchronization, but the best pacing programming strategy is not clear.

On the one hand a basic rate of 50 to 70 bpm (optionally with some rate-responsive function) could be considered for therapy up-titration, specifically betablockers; on the other hand, increasing pacing rates may partially reduce benefits from resynchronization, reducing filling time and contractility reservoir.

The Pegasus investigation is the only large randomized investigation comparing DDD with 70 bpm basic rate to DDD(R) @40 bpm. Results showed no difference in investigation endpoints, including mortality and HF-hospitalization.

These results may support the use of a device implementing both a CRT function and a right ventricular single-lead with and an atrial sensing dipole (CRT-DX system). This system can track ventricular pacing and resynchronization following atrial sensing, even if it cannot provide atrial pacing support. It should be assessed whether such limitation is counterbalanced by the advantages related to the reduced number of necessary leads, with simplified implantation and less complications.

The objective of the investigation is to assess whether atrial pacing support is really necessary in the subset of patients with indication to CRT-D and no evidence of sinus dysfunction on optimal therapy. The investigation will test the hypothesis that a CRT-DX system is not inferior to a conventional CRT-D system in this class of subjects.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

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

Inclusion criteria

  • Male and female patients ≥ 18 years old
  • Patients willing to participate in the investigation and signing the Patient Informed Consent (PIC) Form;
  • Indication to CRT-D implant according to current ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy
  • Sinus rhythm at time of implant;
  • Optimized medical therapy according to current ESC Guidelines
  • Rest heart rate (HR) >45 bpm at baseline ECG, with betablocker therapy at optimal medical dosage; or, if rest HR<45 bpm: maximum heart rate at the 6- minute walking test >85 bpm.

Exclusion criteria

  • Any indication to atrial pacing according to current guidelines;
  • Both: resting heart rate <45 bpm at baseline ECG, with betablocker therapy at optimal medical dosage and maximum heart rate at the 6-minute walking test <85 bpm;
  • NYHA Class IV;
  • Permanent Atrial Fibrillation
  • Replacement of/upgrading from previously implanted pacing system;
  • Dialysis patients;
  • Pregnant or breast-feeding women.

Treatment and study plan

Conventional 3-lead CRT defibrillator system implantation

Device

Conventional 3-lead(1 atrial and 2 ventricular leads) system implantation

2-lead CRT defibrillator system implantation

Device

2-lead (2 ventricular leads with dipole for atrial sensing) DX system implantation

Primary outcomes

  1. Combined endpoint of Mortality, hospitalization due to cardiac causes and lead-related complications

    Time frame: 1 year

    It includes number of patients who experienced death, hospitalization due to cardiac causes, or any lead-related complication leading to loss of functionality (including lead dislodgement, conduction or insulation failure, loss of sensing or capture that couldn't resolved by reprogramming)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Rate of implant revisions

    Time frame: 1 year

    Rate of implant revisions to add, replace, reposition, and remove an atrial pacing lead.

  2. Rate of inappropriate therapy of the device

    Time frame: 1 year

    Inappropriate detections and interventions of high rate ventricular episodes.

  3. Atrial pacing percentage

    Time frame: 1 year

    In the conventional CRT-D group, atrial pacing percentage.

  4. Exercise test

    Time frame: 1 year

    Six minute walking test distance at one year

  5. Device detected AT

    Time frame: 1 year

    Incidence of atrial tachyarrhythmias (AT)

  6. Incidence of appropriate Ventricular therapy

    Time frame: 1 year

    Incidence of Ventricular Arrhythmias (VA) requiring therapy delivery

  7. Incidence of events due to short-long-short sequence

    Time frame: 1 year

    Incidence of both VA and AT due to bradycardia or short-long-short sequence

  8. Implant failure

    Time frame: 1 year

    Impossibility to implant any component (leads and device) of the initially planned system

  9. Procedure times

    Time frame: 1 year

    Skin-to-skin and fluoroscopy time

  10. Atrial sensing amplitude measured by device

    Time frame: 1 year

    Atrial sensing amplitude measured by devices in both investigation arms

  11. Far field oversensing incidence

    Time frame: 1 year

    Incidence of far field oversensing episodes in both investigation arms

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Associazione Portatori Dispositivi Impiantabili Cardiaci

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Non-inferiority Randomized Clinical Investigation of CRT-DX Versus CRT-D Systems

Acronym: CRT-NEXT

Important dates

Study start
2018
Primary completion
2025
Study completion
2025
First posted
Jul 16, 2018
Registry last updated
Jul 6, 2026

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.