Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT00989326

Evaluate the Benefits of Pacemaker Follow-Up With Home-Monitoring

The study investigates whether home monitoring follow-up of Pace-Maker patients is as efficient as conventional method in terms of Significant Serious Adverse Event (SSAE).

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

CHU Pontchaillou de Rennes

Rennes, 35033, France

About this study

Due to its integrated long-distance telemetry, the implantable pacemaker Philos II DR-T is capable of periodically transmitting data from the pacemaker memory to the BIOTRONIK Service Center via patient device. The BIOTRONIK Service Center decodes the data and presents it to the physician on a password secured internet site. Additionally, in case certain event criteria are met, the most important Home Monitoring information are immediately faxed to the physician as an Event Report. These events can be customised by the physician. Thus, the physician will be able to closely monitor the patient and check the adequacy and efficiency of the pacemaker therapy without requiring the patient to visit the physician. The transmitted data comprise information on atrial and ventricular rhythm, atrioventricular conduction and system status.

The purpose of the national prospective, randomized, multicentric clinical study "COMPArative follow-up Schedule with home monitoring" (COMPAS) described here is to evaluate the benefits of pacemaker follow-up with home monitoring in France. The standard follow-up or therapeutic intervention will be deemed based on faxed event Reports reception and Cardio reports analysis on internet site. During the clinical study, the incidence of serious adverse events (hospitalisation, pacemaker dysfunction, and cardiovascular events), economic impact, safety, and practicability will be analysed. The findings from the ACTIVE group will be compared to those of a group receiving standard of care (CONTROL group). Both patient groups are followed for 18 months and will be followed with Home Monitoring switched on. The data from the CONTROL group will not be presented online to the attending physician, but a retrospective analysis on differences between the two groups will be performed.

The trial will be conducted as a prospective, randomised, open, multicenter, national clinical trial. The enrollment of 400 patients in 50 clinical centres in France is anticipated. The principal inclusion criterion is indication for dual chamber pacemaker/ICD implantation. Main exclusion criteria comprise pacemaker dependency.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

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

Inclusion criteria

  • The patient is willing and able to comply with the protocol
  • The patient has provided written informed consent
  • Patient whose medical situation is stable
  • Patient with PHILOS II DR-T Pacemaker >= one month with A/V bipolar lead
  • No change of residence expected during study

Exclusion criteria

  • Spontaneous Ventricular Rhythm < 30 ppm
  • Heart failure no controlled by medical treatment
  • Post cardiac surgery (< 1 month)
  • Post myocardial infarction (< 1 month)
  • More than two cardioversion shocks for last 6 month
  • A/V Lead dislodgement, or/and impedance, threshold, or sensing failure
  • Pocket hematoma with needed intervention
  • Pneumothorax / Hemothorax
  • Infection
  • Automatic Ventricular Threshold Test cannot be realised
  • Patient unable to handle Home Monitoring system correctly
  • Insufficient GSM coverage at patient's home
  • Participation in another clinical study

Treatment and study plan

Home Monitoring

Other

Both patient groups are followed for 18 months and will be followed with Home Monitoring switched on. The data from the CONTROL group will not be presented online to the attending physician, but a retrospective analysis on differences between the two groups will be performed.

Other names: Remote monitoring

Primary outcomes

  1. Number of patients with serious adverse events detected during and at the end of an 18 months follow-up period is compared for the two groups

    Time frame: 18 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. Efficacy of Home Monitoring to detect pacemaker dysfunction

    Time frame: 18 months

  2. Reduction of associated cost

    Time frame: 18 months

  3. Delay of Home Monitoring to manage adverse events

    Time frame: 18 months

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Biotronik France

Industry

Collaborators

  • Biotronik SE & Co. KG

Registry information

Official study title

Comparative Follow-up Schedule With Home Monitoring

Acronym: COMPAS

Important dates

Study start
2005
Primary completion
2009
Study completion
2009
First posted
Oct 5, 2009
Registry last updated
Jun 24, 2010

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.