Safety and Efficacy Study of IPG Patient With Home Monitoring
Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy of the Management of Pacemaker Patients Followed-up Via Home Monitoring vs. Conventional In-Office Follow-up
The number of patients with implantable pulse generator (IPG) has steadily increased in Japan causing increment in number of in office follow-ups and greater burden on many hospitals.
The purpose of this multicenter randomized study is to demonstrate that BIOTRONIK Home Monitoring system reduces office follow-up visits without compromising patient safety.
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Aichi
-
Toyoake, Aichi, Japan, 4701192
- Fujita Health University
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Indicated for IPG implantation under Japanese guidelines
- Implanted within the last 45 days or being considered for implant with a BIOTRONIK IPG with Home Monitoring
- Able to utilize HM system throughout the study
- Ability to give informed consent
- Geographically stable and able to return for follow-ups for 27 months
- Over 20 years old
- Patient able to understand and follow the procedure stated in protocol
Exclusion Criteria:
- Contraindicated for IPG under Japanese guidelines
- Patients who are currently included in another cardiac clinical study
- Patients with expected life period of less than two years
- Patients who might undergo heart transplantation in next two years.
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Home Monitoring(HM)
Patients assigned to HM Group(HM follow-up ONLY) will have Home Monitoring programmed ON.
They will be seen in the office for device interrogations at the 3-month follow-up, and at 27 month follow-up.
In the meanwhile the device status will be evaluated using HM only for the 9, 15 and 21 month scheduled follow-up.
Patients will visit the hospital for device interrogation on 27 month final follow-up.
|
Home Monitoring system transfers implantable device's data to the main server via internet.
|
|
Active Comparator: Control
Patients assigned to Control Group (HM + Conventional In-office follow-up - Control group) will have HM programmed ON.
In addition to HM, these patients will visit the hospital for device interrogation at 3, 9, 15, 21 and 27 month follow-ups.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Evaluation for Equivalence of the Number of Patients Who Meet the Composite Safety Endpoint Between Home Monitoring Group(HM) and Control Group Which is HM + Conventional In-office Follow-up
Time Frame: 2 years
|
The purpose of the primary endpoint is to compare the composite safety endpoint, Safety Event Rate (SER) which includes death, incidence of strokes and cardiovascular related serious adverse events requiring surgical interventions (e.g. device explants or lead revision) between HM Group and Control Group. Safety will be evaluated in the following testable hypothesis in an equivalence (non-inferiority) format: HØ: The safety event rate (SER) for a 24-month duration for Group 1 is not equivalent to the SER for Group 2. SER Group 1 - SER Group 2 ≥ Ha : The safety event rate (SER) for a 12-month duration for Group 1 is equivalent to the SER for Group 2 SER Group 1 - SER Group 2 < Where, ( )represents the allowable clinically significant difference. 5% was set for the study. A rejection of the null hypothesis (HØ) will indicate that the safety event rate for Group 1 is equivalent (non-inferior) to that of Group 2. |
2 years
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
The Median (IQR) Numbers of In-office Follow-up(FU) Visits Per Patient-year
Time Frame: 2 years
|
Average numbers of outpatient follow-up(FU)s per patient are compared between Home Monitoring(HM) group and the control group, assessing total numbers of outpatient FUs combining regular and additional FUs. If the average number of visits in HM group is significantly less than that in Control group, it would serve as supporting evidence that the number of outpatient FUs can be reduced with HM. Analysis is performed on those patients that had a regular 3 months-FU following Intention to treat(ITT) principle. The analysis population of endpoint can be expected to be larger than the analysis population of the primary endpoints because patients with drop-out after the 3-months FU, but before the 27 months-FU will be included. The numbers of FU visits that occur in the 2 groups during the study period are compared as follows: AveN Group 1= Average number of FU visits per 2 years in the HM group AveN Control= Average number of FU visits per 2 years in the control group |
2 years
|
|
Efficacy of Home Monitoring:Average Cost for In-office Follow-up Per Patient-year
Time Frame: 2 years
|
The sum of insured medical expenses for regular and additional outpatient FUs will be compared between HM group and Control group. It shall include Fees of FU consultation, cardiac IPG instruction, and other diagnostic test , but treatment fees including medication. Hospitalization are not included. This analysis is performed on the same ITT population as the analysis set of the first secondary endpoint. To compensate for possible asymmetric drop-out, the comparison will not be cost per patient, but costs per patient-year. Study costs per patient will be calculated by summing up all relevant variables in 3mFU Randomization CRF (points2-11) as well as in InOffice FU CRF and in Additional InOffice FU CRF. Total costs per patient result by multiplying the sum of all points by 10. Unit measurement is Yen. H : The average costs in HM group are not less than that in Control group. AveCostsHM ≥ AveCostsControl Ha: The average costs in HM group are less than that in Control group. |
2 years
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Investigators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Eiichi Watanabe, MD, Fujita Health University
Publications and helpful links
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Estimate)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- atHome Study
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.