DANISH-CRT - Does Electric Targeted LV Lead Positioning Improve Outcome in Patients With Heart Failure and Prolonged QRS

Sponsor
Aarhus University Hospital (Other)
Overall Status
Recruiting
CT.gov ID
NCT03280862
Collaborator
Aalborg University Hospital (Other), Odense University Hospital (Other), Rigshospitalet, Denmark (Other), Gentofte University Hospital (Other)
1,000
5
2
79.4
200
2.5

Study Details

Study Description

Brief Summary

Heart failure is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a well-established treatment for patients with symptomatic heart failure in spite of optimised medical treatment (OMT), reduced left ventricular pump function with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% and prolonged activation of the ventricles (bundle branch block: BBB). CRT is established by implanting an advanced pacemaker system with three leads in the right atrium, right ventricle, and in the coronary sinus (CS) for pacing the left ventricle (LV), and often is combined with an implantable defibrillator (ICD) function. On average, CRT treatment improves longevity, quality of life and functional class, and reduces heart failure symptoms. Thus, at present, CRT is indicated for heart failure patients on OMT with BBB or chronic right ventricular (RV) pacing.

It is, however, a significant problem that 30-40% of CRT patients do not benefit measurably - showing symptomatic improvement or improved cardiac pump function - from this therapy (socalled non-responders). LV lead placement is one of the major determinants of beneficial effect from CRT.

Observational studies and three randomised trials with small sample sizes indicate that targeted placement of the LV lead towards a late activated segment of the LV may be associated with improved outcome. Based on this literature, some physicians already search for late activation when positioning the LV lead. However, such a strategy was never tested in a controlled trial with a sample size sufficient to investigate important clinical outcomes. Detailed mapping for a late activation may increase operating times and infection risk, result in use of more electrodes and wires, thereby increasing costs, and increase radiation exposure for patient and staff. Placement of the LV lead in late activated areas close to myocardial scar may even result in higher risk of arrhythmia and death.

At present, it is completely unsettled whether targeted positioning of the LV lead to the latest electrically activated area of LV is superior to contemporary standard CRT with regard to improving prognosis for patients with heart failure and BBB.

The present study aims to test whether targeting the placement of the LV lead towards the latest electrically activated segment in the coronary sinus branches improves outcome as compared with standard LV lead implant in a patient population with heart failure and CRT indication.

Condition or Disease Intervention/Treatment Phase
  • Device: Implantation of a Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy (CRT) pacing device with or without Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillator
N/A

Study Design

Study Type:
Interventional
Anticipated Enrollment :
1000 participants
Allocation:
Randomized
Intervention Model:
Parallel Assignment
Intervention Model Description:
Double-blind randomised controlled trial. Patients are included and randomised 1:1 into two groups for implantation of either a CRT-D/P device with the LV lead positioned according to the latest electrical activation in the CS (intervention group) or a CRT-D/P device with the LV lead positioned preferentially in a posterolateral, non-apical position (control group)Double-blind randomised controlled trial. Patients are included and randomised 1:1 into two groups for implantation of either a CRT-D/P device with the LV lead positioned according to the latest electrical activation in the CS (intervention group) or a CRT-D/P device with the LV lead positioned preferentially in a posterolateral, non-apical position (control group)
Masking:
Quadruple (Participant, Care Provider, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Masking Description:
Patients are unaware of treatment arm. All patients undergo the same pre-implant program and follow-up. Healthcare personel performing follow-up are blinded for treatment arm. Outcome events are evaluated by a committee blinded for treatment arm.
Primary Purpose:
Treatment
Official Title:
Does Targeted LV Lead Positioning Towards Latest Local Electric Activation at CRT Implantation Reduce Incidence of the Combined Endpoint "Death or Non-planned Hospitalisation for Heart Failure (HF)" in Patients With HF and Prolonged QRS
Actual Study Start Date :
Mar 20, 2018
Anticipated Primary Completion Date :
Nov 30, 2023
Anticipated Study Completion Date :
Nov 1, 2024

Arms and Interventions

Arm Intervention/Treatment
Active Comparator: Control

Implantation of a Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy (CRT) pacing device with or without Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillator with the LV lead positioned preferentially in a posterolateral, non-apical position

Device: Implantation of a Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy (CRT) pacing device with or without Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillator
Implantation of CRT-P/-D device

Experimental: Intervention

Implantation of a Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy (CRT) pacing device with or without Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillator with the LV lead positioned according to the latest electrical activation in the CS

Device: Implantation of a Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy (CRT) pacing device with or without Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillator
Implantation of CRT-P/-D device

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

  1. Death or first non-planned hospitalisation for heart failure [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Time to death or first non-planned hospitalisation for heart failure

Secondary Outcome Measures

  1. Death [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Time to death

  2. Non-planned hospitalisation for heart failure [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Time to first non-planned hospitalisation for heart failure

  3. Sudden death [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Time to sudden death

  4. Cardiac death [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Time to cardiac death

  5. Clinical response [Follow-up at 3, 6, 12, 24 and 48 months]

    Increase in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (≥1 class from baseline) or improved walking distance by six-minute walk test (6MWT) (≥10% from baseline)

  6. Quality of Life (QoL) [Follow-up at 6, 12, 24 and 48 months]

    Changes in score from baseline to follow-up

  7. Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) [Follow-up at 6, 12, 24 and 48 months]

    Changes in score from baseline to follow-up

  8. Echocardiographic measures of LV function [Follow-up at 6, 12, 24 and 48 months]

    Changes from baseline to follow-up in left ventricular ejection fraction (%)

  9. Time to first appropriate ICD Therapy [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Time to first appropriate ICD therapy (antitachycardia pacing (ATP) or shock therapy)

  10. Time to first inappropriate ICD Therapy [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Time to first inappropriate ICD therapy (antitachycardia pacing (ATP) or shock therapy)

  11. Numbers of appropriate ICD Therapies [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Numbers of appropriate ICD therapies (antitachycardia pacing (ATP) or shock therapy)

  12. Numbers of inappropriate ICD Therapies [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Numbers of inappropriate ICD therapies (antitachycardia pacing (ATP) or shock therapy)

  13. Ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Time to first episode of VT/VF

  14. Persistent atrial fibrillation [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Recorded by the implanted device

  15. Any atrial fibrillation [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    >30 seconds recorded by the implanted device

  16. Implantation time [0-6 hours, assessed at completion of implantation procedure]

    Procedure time at implantation

  17. Fluoroscopy time [0-120 minutes, assessed at completion of implantation procedure]

    Fluoroscopy time at implantation in minutes

  18. Fluoroscopy dose [Assessed <24 hours after implantation initiation]

    Fluoroscopy dose at implantation in mGy

  19. Equipment used at implantation [Assessed <24 hours after implantation initiation]

    Number of LV leads (0-5) used at implantation

  20. Device-related outcomes [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Periprocedural: lead re-operation, pneumothorax, hemothorax, pericardial bleeding/tamponade and later (30 days post implantation): LV lead re-operation, device replacement due to battery depletion, and infection requiring extraction

  21. Battery replacements [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Number of device replacements during the study period due to battery depletion

  22. Battery longevity estimate [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Measured by actual device battery longevity + estimated remaining device battery longevity as reported by the device at last study follow-up

  23. QRS complex width [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Changes in the ECG parameter QRS complex width during follow-up

  24. QRS complex morphology [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Changes in the ECG parameter QRS complex morphology during follow-up

  25. Predictive value of P-wave [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Predictive value of the baseline ECG parameter P-wave on clinical outcome measures in the entire cohort and between the two treatment groups

  26. Predictive value of QRS complex width [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Predictive value of the baseline ECG parameter QRS complex width on clinical outcome measures in the entire cohort and between the two treatment groups

  27. Predictive value of QRS complex morphology [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Predictive value of the baseline ECG parameter QRS complex morphology on clinical outcome measures in the entire cohort and between the two treatment groups

  28. Changes in cardiac chamber dimensions [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Volumes of cardiac chambers (left ventricle, left atrium, right ventricle, right atrium) measured by echocardiography and cardiac CT during follow-up in the entire cohort and between the two treatment groups

  29. Changes in left ventricular ejection fraction LVEF [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Changes in cardiac chamber function measured by echocardiography and cardiac CT during follow-up in the entire cohort and between the two treatment groups

  30. Changes in right ventricular ejection fraction RVEF [All patients will be followed until the last included patient has been followed for two years]

    Changes in cardiac chamber function measured by echocardiography and cardiac CT during follow-up in the entire cohort and between the two treatment groups

Eligibility Criteria

Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study:
40 Years and Older
Sexes Eligible for Study:
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:
No
Inclusion Criteria:
  • Heart Failure, NYHA II, III, outpatient IV

  • LVEF ≤35% measured by echocardiography

  • Optimal medical treatment for heart failure

  • Bundle Branch Block

  • Indication for primary CRT-D or CRT-P implantation or upgrade from RV pacing (pacemaker or ICD) to CRT-D or CRT-P

  • Ischemic heart disease (IHD) or non-IHD

  • Sinus rhythm or atrial fibrillation

  • Life expectancy >2 years

  • Signed informed consent

Exclusion Criteria:
  • NYHA class I

  • Acute mycardial infarction (AMI) within the latest 3 months

  • Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) within the latest 3 months

  • Life expectancy <2 years

  • Participation in another clinical trial of experimental treatment

  • Contraindication for establishing implantable device treatment

  • Previously implanted CRT system

  • Does not wish to participate

Contacts and Locations

Locations

Site City State Country Postal Code
1 Aalborg University Hospital Aalborg Denmark 9000
2 Aarhus University Hospital Aarhus Denmark 8200
3 Rigshospitalet Copenhagen Denmark 2100
4 Gentofte University Hospital Gentofte Denmark 2900
5 Odense University Hospital Odense Denmark 5000

Sponsors and Collaborators

  • Aarhus University Hospital
  • Aalborg University Hospital
  • Odense University Hospital
  • Rigshospitalet, Denmark
  • Gentofte University Hospital

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Jens C Nielsen, Aarhus University Hospital

Study Documents (Full-Text)

None provided.

More Information

Publications

None provided.
Responsible Party:
Jens Cosedis Nielsen, Professor, DMSc, PhD, FESC, FEHRA, Aarhus University Hospital
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT03280862
Other Study ID Numbers:
  • 1-10-72-330-16
First Posted:
Sep 13, 2017
Last Update Posted:
Jul 21, 2021
Last Verified:
Jul 1, 2021
Individual Participant Data (IPD) Sharing Statement:
No
Plan to Share IPD:
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product:
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product:
No
Keywords provided by Jens Cosedis Nielsen, Professor, DMSc, PhD, FESC, FEHRA, Aarhus University Hospital
Additional relevant MeSH terms:

Study Results

No Results Posted as of Jul 21, 2021