TrialReader


QP ExCELs: MultiPole Pacing (MPP) Sub-Study

NCT03155724 — Not applicable, Completed, 53 participants, Biotronik, Inc.

ClinicalTrials Daily  ·  Areas  ·  Conditions  ·  Drugs  ·  Sponsors  ·  
RegistryNCT03155724
StatusCompleted
PhaseNot applicable
Study typeInterventional; na, single group, masking: none, treatment
Enrollment53 (Actual)
SponsorBiotronik, Inc. (Industry)
ConditionsHeart Failure
InterventionsMultiPole Pacing (Device)
Datesstart 2017-05-19, primary completion 2020-01-23, completion 2020-01-23, first posted 2017-05-16, last updated 2021-03-08
Locations44 sites in United States

Related Papers Related Patents Related Grants Related Experts
AI Assistant Save
All trials for Heart Failure All trials of MultiPole Pacing

-Summary

The objective of this MultiPole Pacing (MPP) sub-study of the QP ExCELs study is to demonstrate that the MPP feature is effective by converting a percentage of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) non-responders to responders. The MPP sub-study is a single-arm, multi-center, prospective trial within the ongoing QP ExCELs study (NCT02290028).

Expand all sections  ·  Collapse all

+Arms and interventions

ArmTypeInterventionsDescription
MultiPole PacingExperimentalDevice: MultiPole PacingTraditional biventricular pacing CRT non-responders at the 3 or 6 month QP ExCELs study follow-up.
  • MultiPole Pacing (Device): CRT non-responders are programmed with MultiPole pacing ON.

+Outcome measures

Primary outcomes

  • Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) Responder Status With the MPP Feature [Enrollment to 6 Months]: Count of participants who are classified as "Improved", where responder classification is derived from a clinical composite score (CCS) based on changes in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, Heart Failure (HF) hospitalization, and cardiovascular death. Responder classification at 6 months (evaluated compared to MPP Enrollment Visit) : * "Improved" * No HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death, AND * NYHA class is improved * "Unchanged" * No HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death, AND * NYHA class is unchanged * "Worsened" * HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death has occurred, OR * NYHA class is worsened

Secondary outcomes

  • Percentage of Participants Without MPP System Related Adverse Events Requiring Additional Invasive Intervention to Resolve at 6 Months. [Enrollment to 6 Months]: Evaluate adverse events that require additional invasive intervention to resolve specifically related to the MPP feature. These adverse events include any software issues related to MPP programming or any adverse event that occurs while MPP is enabled and that may be attributed to the use of the MPP feature. Outcome was evaluated as an adverse event free-rate (AEFR).
  • Clinical Composite Score (CCS) + Patient Global Assessment (PGA) Responder Status Utilizing a Modified CCS That Incorporates the PGA [Enrollment to 6 Months]: Evaluate a modified CCS, determining a responder classification based on changes in NYHA class, PGA, HF hospitalization, and cardiovascular death, where the PGA will ask participantss to assess how their overall status has changed since prior to receiving CRT therapy (markedly better, better, unchanged, worse, markedly worse). Modified responder classification (CCS + PGA) at 6 months (evaluated compared to MPP Enrollment Visit): * "Improved" * No HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death, AND * Neither NYHA class is worsened or PGA is worsened ("worse" or "markedly worse"), AND * NYHA class is improved or PGA is improved ("better" or "markedly better") * "Unchanged" * No HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death, AND * NYHA class is unchanged, AND * PGA is unchanged ("unchanged") * "Worsened" * HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death has occurred, OR * NYHA class is worsened or PGA is worsened ("worse" or "markedly worse")
  • CCS Responder Status Utilizing an Expanded Responder Classification [Enrollment to 6 Months]: Evaluate a modified CCS with an expanded responder classification where "Improved" and "Unchanged" are considered responders. Responder classification at 6 months (evaluated compared to MPP Enrollment Visit) : * "Improved" * No HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death, AND * NYHA class is improved * "Unchanged" * No HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death, AND * NYHA class is unchanged * "Worsened" * HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death has occurred, OR * NYHA class is worsened

+Eligibility

Sex: All, ages: 18 Years to any

Inclusion Criteria:

* Currently enrolled in the ongoing QP ExCELs study
* Successfully implanted with a BIOTRONIK Ilivia 7 HF-T QP family CRT-D system, or future-marketed CRT-D system with the MPP feature. Successful implantation is defined as having at least two LV pacing vectors with a measured pacing threshold of ≤ 5.0 V @ any pulse width (allowing for a minimum 2.5 V safety margin) without phrenic nerve stimulation at the final programmed pacing output at the time of enrollment into the MPP sub-study.
* CRT Responder Assessment classification as "Worsened" or "Unchanged"
* Standard continuous biventricular (BiV) pacing from implant until the 6-Month QP ExCELs follow-up visit. (Implant to 3-Month QP ExCELs follow-up who qualify due to a Heart Failure (HF) hospitalization event)
* Able to understand the nature of the sub-study and give informed consent
* Available for an additional follow-up visit specific to the MPP sub-study at the investigational site
* No evidence of non-compliance to their ongoing commitment in the QP ExCELs study

Exclusion Criteria:

* Have a life expectancy of less than 6 months
* Expected to receive heart transplantation or ventricular assist device within 6 months
* Chronic atrial fibrillation
* Presence of another life-threatening, underlying illness separate from their cardiac disorder
* Received MPP pacing prior to enrolment into the MPP sub-study

+Posted results

Participant flow

MilestoneMultiPole Pacing
Started53
Completed42
Not completed11

Outcome results

  • Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) Responder Status With the MPP Feature (Primary), Count of participants, Participants: MultiPole Pacing 16 (p <0.0001)
  • Percentage of Participants Without MPP System Related Adverse Events Requiring Additional Invasive Intervention to Resolve at 6 Months. (Secondary), Number, percentage of participants: MultiPole Pacing 100 (93.28 to 100.00)
  • Clinical Composite Score (CCS) + Patient Global Assessment (PGA) Responder Status Utilizing a Modified CCS That Incorporates the PGA (Secondary), Count of participants, Participants: MultiPole Pacing 27
  • CCS Responder Status Utilizing an Expanded Responder Classification (Secondary), Count of participants, Participants: MultiPole Pacing 39

Adverse events

Time frame: 6 months

ArmDeathsSerious adverse eventsOther adverse events
MultiPole Pacing3/53 (5.7%)5/53 (9.4%)6/53 (11.3%)

Serious adverse events by term

TermOrgan systemMultiPole Pacing
Heart Failure HospitalizationCardiac disorders3/53
Non-Heart failure HospitalizationGeneral disorders3/53

Other adverse events by term

TermOrgan systemMultiPole Pacing
Non-system related/ Non Protocol-definedCardiac disorders2/53
Extracardiac stimulationCardiac disorders4/53

+Locations (44)

FacilityCityCountryStatus
Thomas HospitalFairhope, AlabamaUnited States
South Bay ElectrophysiologyInglewood, CaliforniaUnited States
Eisenhower Desert CardiologyRancho Mirage, CaliforniaUnited States
MedStar Washington Hospital CenterWashington D.C., District of ColumbiaUnited States
Florida HospitalOrlando, FloridaUnited States
Orlando Health Heart InstituteOrlando, FloridaUnited States
Florida Hospital Tampa Pepin Heart InstituteTampa, FloridaUnited States
Piedmont Heart InstituteAtlanta, GeorgiaUnited States
University of Chicago Medical CenterChicago, IllinoisUnited States
Parkview Physicians Group - CardiologyFort Wayne, IndianaUnited States
University of Iowa Hospitals and ClinicsIowa City, IowaUnited States
University of Kansas HospitalKansas City, KansasUnited States
Baptist Health - LexingtonLexington, KentuckyUnited States
University of KentuckyLexington, KentuckyUnited States
Northeast CardiologyBangor, MaineUnited States
Massachusetts General HospitalBoston, MassachusettsUnited States
Southcoast HealthFall River, MassachusettsUnited States
University of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcester, MassachusettsUnited States
University of Michigan HospitalAnn Arbor, MichiganUnited States
Henry Ford HospitalDetroit, MichiganUnited States
Michigan HeartYpsilanti, MichiganUnited States
Cardiology Associates of North MississippiTupelo, MississippiUnited States
SSM Health St. Joseph Hospital - St. CharlesSaint Charles, MissouriUnited States
Mercy Clinic CardiologySpringfield, MissouriUnited States
St. Louis Heart and VascularSt Louis, MissouriUnited States
Glacier View Medical Research Institute, CardiologyKalispell, MontanaUnited States
Jersey Shore University Medical CenterNeptune City, New JerseyUnited States
New York Presbyterian QueensFlushing, New YorkUnited States
Weill Cornell MedicineNew York, New YorkUnited States
Mt. Sinai St. Luke's HospitalNew York, New YorkUnited States
Montefiore Medical CenterThe Bronx, New YorkUnited States
Westchester Medical CenterValhalla, New YorkUnited States
Asheville Cardiology AssociatesAsheville, North CarolinaUnited States
Novant Health Winston-Salem CardiologyWinston-Salem, North CarolinaUnited States
Wake Forest Baptist Health Medical CenterWinston-Salem, North CarolinaUnited States
Sanford Medical Center - FargoFargo, North DakotaUnited States
University of CincinnatiCincinnati, OhioUnited States
Temple Heart and Vascular InstitutePhiladelphia, PennsylvaniaUnited States
Upstate CardiologyGreenville, South CarolinaUnited States
UT Erlanger CardiologyChattanooga, TennesseeUnited States
Fort Worth HeartFort Worth, TexasUnited States
UT Health Science CenterThe Woodlands, TexasUnited States
University of Utah Medical CenterSalt Lake City, UtahUnited States
UVM MedicalBurlington, VermontUnited States

+Study documents

My Notes