RV lead placement site
OtherPatients randomised to RV apical or high septal lead placement site
NCT Number: NCT00461734
This study will be done in patients who require the implantation of a cardiac pacemaker (an electronic device that controls the heartbeat) for complete heart block (a heart rhythm abnormality resulting in a slow heart beat). Pacemakers regulate the heart beat by delivering pulses of electricity through special wires (pacing leads) which are placed inside the heart.
This study will compare two groups of pacemaker patients. Each group will have their pacing leads placed in a particular location in the heart. The purpose of the study is to show whether the position used in one group is better for maintaining effective heart function compared to the position used in the other group.
The leads in one group will be placed in a position called the Right Ventricular Apex. This is the traditional and most frequently used position for pacemaker leads.
The leads in the other group will be placed in a position called the Right Ventricular High Septum. This is a less commonly used position, but may result in health benefits for the patients compared with the Right Ventricular Apex.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
There is an increasing amount of evidence to suggest that other positions in the heart may be more effective than the conventional Right Ventricular Apex (RVA) position for restoring good heart function. The best site to place a lead has not yet been proven.
This is a study comparing the long term clinical effects of two different lead positions. The measurements taken to assess the clinical effects include:
Half of the patients in the study will receive conventional leads placed in the more common RVA position in the heart. The other half will receive a relatively new type of lead placed in what is called the Right Ventricular High Septal (RVHS) position.
In order to fairly compare the outcomes of these two different lead positions this study has been designed as a 'randomized', 'blind' trial. This means that the group which patients will be entered into will be chosen at random and patients will not be told which group they are in.
Patients will each have an equal (50:50) chance of being in either group. By carefully comparing the clinical differences between the two groups of patients, the study aims to prove whether or not there are additional benefits for patients when the RVHS lead position is used.
All leads used in the study have been shown to be safe for patients and are available commercially for implantation. All of the implanting doctors involved in the study are experienced at implanting the pacemakers and leads that will be used in this study.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Patients randomised to RV apical or high septal lead placement site
Time frame: At 2-year follow-up
Time frame: At 2-year follow-up
Time frame: At 2-year follow-up
Time frame: At 2-year follow-up
Time frame: At 5-years follow-up (study extension)
Time frame: At 5-year follow-up (study extension)
Time frame: At 5-year follow-up (study extension)
Worsening of heart failure can be defined as:
Time frame: At 5-year follow-up (study extension)
Time frame: At 5-year follow-up (study extension)
Time frame: At 2-year follow-up
Time frame: At 2-year follow-up
Time frame: At 2-year follow-up
No analysis has been done for this section since that variable was not collected during the study.
Time frame: At 2-year follow-up
Time frame: At 2-year follow-up
Medtronic Cardiac Rhythm and Heart Failure
Industry
PROTECT-PACE STUDY - The Protection of Left Ventricular Function During Right Ventricular Pacing. Does Right Ventricular High-septal Pacing Improve Outcome Compared With Right Ventricular Apical Pacing?
Acronym: PROTECT-PACE
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.
NCT02354989
Arrhythmias, Cardiac, Atrial Fibrillation
Ancona, Italy
View Trial DetailsNCT07515859
Cancer Therapy-related Cardiac Dysfunction, Cardiotoxicity
Seoul, South Korea
View Trial DetailsNCT07519434
Cardiac Remodeling, Cardiovascular Diseases
Shanghai, Shanghai Municipality, China
View Trial DetailsNCT04774523
Arrhythmias, Cardiac, Cardiac Arrhythmia
Burgos, Castille and León, Spain
View Trial Details