- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT00336284
TRUST: Lumos-T Safely RedUceS RouTine Office Device Follow-up (TRUST)
July 28, 2010 updated by: Biotronik, Inc.
This study is a multi-center, prospective and randomized trial.
The primary objective of this study is to demonstrate that the use of the BIOTRONIK Home Monitoring system (HM) can safely reduce the number of regularly scheduled office follow-up visits, compared to the conventional method of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) follow-up.
Study Overview
Status
Completed
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Study Type
Interventional
Enrollment (Actual)
1450
Phase
- Phase 4
Contacts and Locations
This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.
Study Locations
-
-
Ontario
-
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Site 104
-
-
Quebec
-
Fleurimont, Quebec, Canada
- Site 92
-
-
-
-
Alabama
-
Birmingham, Alabama, United States, 35294
- Site 55
-
-
Arizona
-
Mesa, Arizona, United States, 85205
- Site 68
-
Phoenix, Arizona, United States, 85016
- Site 99
-
-
California
-
Bakersfield, California, United States, 93301
- Site 118
-
Bakersfield, California, United States, 93301
- Site 91
-
Burbank, California, United States, 91505
- Site 95
-
Fairfield, California, United States, 94533
- Site 72
-
Fremont, California, United States, 94568
- Site 43
-
Fresno, California, United States, 93701
- Site 90
-
Fresno, California, United States, 93720
- Site 73
-
Fresno, California, United States, 93720
- Site 75
-
Glendale, California, United States, 91203
- Site 67
-
Jackson, California, United States, 95642
- Site 82
-
Mission Viejo, California, United States, 92691
- Site 78
-
Sherman Oaks, California, United States, 91403
- Site 15
-
Simi Valley, California, United States, 93065
- Site 89
-
Whittier, California, United States, 90603
- Site 88
-
-
Colorado
-
Boulder, Colorado, United States, 80304
- Site 37
-
Boulder, Colorado, United States, 80304
- Site 38
-
Denver, Colorado, United States, 80210
- Site 98
-
-
Delaware
-
Newark, Delaware, United States, 19713
- Site 122
-
-
Florida
-
Brooksville, Florida, United States, 34613
- Site 100
-
Jacksonville, Florida, United States, 32207
- Site 111
-
Lakeland, Florida, United States, 33803
- Site 40
-
Lauderdale Lakes, Florida, United States, 33313
- Site 36
-
Miami, Florida, United States, 33176
- Site 34
-
Oakland Park, Florida, United States, 33334
- Site 42
-
Port Charlotte, Florida, United States, 33952
- Site 13
-
Tamarac, Florida, United States, 33321
- Site 41
-
Vero Beach, Florida, United States, 32960
- Site 60
-
-
Georgia
-
Canton, Georgia, United States, 30114
- Site 6
-
Douglas, Georgia, United States, 31533
- Site 106
-
Lawrenceville, Georgia, United States, 30045
- Site 61
-
Marietta, Georgia, United States, 30060
- Site 10
-
Marietta, Georgia, United States, 30060
- Site 66
-
-
Illinois
-
Chicago, Illinois, United States, 60153
- Site 21
-
Chicago, Illinois, United States, 60657
- Site 124
-
Oak Lawn, Illinois, United States, 60453
- Site 39
-
-
Kentucky
-
Louisville, Kentucky, United States, 40215
- Site 3
-
Owensboro, Kentucky, United States, 42303
- Site 11
-
-
Louisiana
-
Covington, Louisiana, United States, 70433
- Site 51
-
Hammond, Louisiana, United States, 70403
- Site 79
-
Lacombe, Louisiana, United States, 70445
- Site 85
-
Lafayette, Louisiana, United States, 70503
- Site 102
-
Lake Charles, Louisiana, United States, 70601
- Site 2
-
New Orleans, Louisiana, United States, 70112
- Site 53
-
-
Maryland
-
Annapolis, Maryland, United States, 21401
- Site 17
-
Lanham, Maryland, United States, 20706
- Site 25
-
Riverdale, Maryland, United States, 20737
- Site 17
-
Rockville, Maryland, United States, 20852
- Site 18
-
-
Massachusetts
-
Boston, Massachusetts, United States, 02135
- Site 29
-
-
Michigan
-
Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States, 48109-0273
- Site 94
-
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, United States, 48302
- Site 103
-
Lansing, Michigan, United States, 48910
- Site 4
-
Lapeer, Michigan, United States, 48446
- Site 12
-
Saginaw, Michigan, United States, 48601
- Site 22
-
-
Mississippi
-
Corinth, Mississippi, United States, 38834
- Site 14
-
Gulfport, Mississippi, United States, 39503
- Site 52
-
-
Missouri
-
Bridgeton, Missouri, United States, 63044
- Site 49
-
Festus, Missouri, United States, 63028
- Site 105
-
Festus, Missouri, United States, 63028
- Site 121
-
Moberly, Missouri, United States, 65270
- Site 45
-
Osage Beach, Missouri, United States, 65065
- Site 56
-
St. Louis, Missouri, United States, 63103
- Site 108
-
St. Louis, Missouri, United States, 63117
- Site 114
-
St. Louis, Missouri, United States, 63128
- Site 48
-
St. Louis, Missouri, United States, 63131
- Site 113
-
St. Louis, Missouri, United States, 63131
- Site 74
-
University City, Missouri, United States, 63130
- Site 47
-
-
New Jersey
-
Brick, New Jersey, United States, 08724
- Site 117
-
East Brunswick, New Jersey, United States, 08816
- Site 120
-
East Orange, New Jersey, United States, 07019
- Site 107
-
Elizabeth, New Jersey, United States, 07202
- Site 119
-
Oakhurst, New Jersey, United States, 07755
- Site 116
-
Wayne, New Jersey, United States, 07470
- Site 71
-
-
New Mexico
-
Las Cruces, New Mexico, United States, 88011
- Site 97
-
-
New York
-
Batavia, New York, United States, 14020
- Site 112
-
Brooklyn, New York, United States, 11203
- Site 19
-
Brooklyn, New York, United States, 11203
- Site 27
-
Brooklyn, New York, United States, 11209
- Site 26
-
Brooklyn, New York, United States, 11223
- Site 77
-
Johnson City, New York, United States, 13790
- Site 9
-
New York, New York, United States, 10021
- Site 35
-
New York, New York, United States, 10028
- Site 76
-
-
North Carolina
-
Pinehurst, North Carolina, United States, 28374
- Site 115
-
-
Ohio
-
Cleveland, Ohio, United States, 44195
- Site 57
-
Columbus, Ohio, United States, 43210
- Site 16
-
Columbus, Ohio, United States, 43228
- Site 50
-
Fairview Park, Ohio, United States, 44129
- Site 84
-
Massillon, Ohio, United States, 44646
- Site 93
-
Middletown, Ohio, United States, 45042
- Site 30
-
Middletown, Ohio, United States, 45042
- Site 87
-
-
Oklahoma
-
Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States, 74136
- Site 96
-
-
Pennsylvania
-
Chinchilla, Pennsylvania, United States, 18410
- Site 63
-
Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania, United States, 18411
- Site 62
-
Upland, Pennsylvania, United States, 19013
- Site 32
-
-
South Carolina
-
Columbia, South Carolina, United States, 29204
- Site 23
-
Florence, South Carolina, United States, 29506
- Site 20
-
Lancaster, South Carolina, United States, 29720
- Site 109
-
Rock Hill, South Carolina, United States, 29732
- Site 5
-
-
Tennessee
-
Knoxville, Tennessee, United States, 37923
- Site 59
-
Knoxville, Tennessee, United States, 37923
- Site 8
-
Tullahoma, Tennessee, United States, 37388
- Site 110
-
-
Texas
-
Amarillo, Texas, United States, 79106
- Site 1
-
Brownsville, Texas, United States, 78520
- Site 81
-
Odessa, Texas, United States, 79761
- Site 33
-
San Antonio, Texas, United States, 78229
- Site 80
-
-
Washington
-
Yakima, Washington, United States, 98902
- Site 7
-
-
Participation Criteria
Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Genders Eligible for Study
All
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Implanted within the last 45 days or being considered for implant with a BIOTRONIK ICD with Home Monitoring (HM)/Intracardiac Electrogram (IEGM)-Online technology, or legally marketed future generation device with HM/IEGM Online.
- Able to utilize the HM system throughout the study
- Ability to give informed consent
- Geographically stable and able to return for regular follow-ups for fifteen (15) months
- At least 18 years old
Exclusion Criteria:
- Patients who do not fulfill all inclusion criteria
- Pacemaker dependent
- Currently enrolled in any other cardiac clinical investigation
Study Plan
This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
---|---|
Active Comparator: Home Monitoring
Home Monitoring programmed on.
|
Home Monitoring programmed on.
In-office and Home Monitoring evaluation at 3 and 15 months post ICD implant.
Home Monitoring evaluation only at 6, 9, and 12 months post ICD implant.
|
Other: In-Office Conventional Follow-up
Home Monitoring programmed off.
|
Home Monitoring programmed off.
In-office evaluations at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months post ICD implant.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Home Monitoring Effectiveness
Time Frame: 12 months
|
Average number of office-based implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) follow-up visits in the Home Monitoring arm vs the Conventional (calendar-based) follow-up arm.
|
12 months
|
Percent of Participants Experiencing Death, Incidence of Stroke, or Event Requiring Surgical Intervention.
Time Frame: 12 months
|
Percentage of participants experiencing death, incidence of stroke, or event(s) requiring surgical intervention.
Outcome measure time frame is 12 months.
|
12 months
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Early Detection of Cardiac Events
Time Frame: 12 months
|
Detection time relative to onset of cardiac events (atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation).
|
12 months
|
Patient Initiated Follow-up
Time Frame: 12 months
|
Percentage of total patient initiated inqueries that result in ER or office follow-up visits.
|
12 months
|
Collaborators and Investigators
This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.
Sponsor
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Niraj Varma, MD, FRCP, The Cleveland Clinic
Publications and helpful links
The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.
General Publications
- Varma N, Epstein AE, Irimpen A, Schweikert R, Love C; TRUST Investigators. Efficacy and safety of automatic remote monitoring for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator follow-up: the Lumos-T Safely Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-up (TRUST) trial. Circulation. 2010 Jul 27;122(4):325-32. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.937409. Epub 2010 Jul 12.
- Varma N, Love CJ, Michalski J, Epstein AE; TRUST Investigators. Alert-Based ICD Follow-Up: A Model of Digitally Driven Remote Patient Monitoring. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021 Aug;7(8):976-987. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2021.01.008. Epub 2021 Feb 24.
- Varma N, Love CJ, Schweikert R, Moll P, Michalski J, Epstein AE; TRUST Investigators. Automatic remote monitoring utilizing daily transmissions: transmission reliability and implantable cardioverter defibrillator battery longevity in the TRUST trial. Europace. 2018 Apr 1;20(4):622-628. doi: 10.1093/europace/eux059.
- Varma N, Epstein AE, Schweikert R, Michalski J, Love CJ; TRUST Investigators. Role of Automatic Wireless Remote Monitoring Immediately Following ICD Implant: The Lumos-T Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-Up Study (TRUST) Trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016 Mar;27(3):321-6. doi: 10.1111/jce.12895. Epub 2016 Jan 27.
- Varma N, Michalski J, Stambler B, Pavri BB; TRUST Investigators. Superiority of automatic remote monitoring compared with in-person evaluation for scheduled ICD follow-up in the TRUST trial - testing execution of the recommendations. Eur Heart J. 2014 May 21;35(20):1345-52. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu066. Epub 2014 Mar 3.
- Varma N, Pavri BB, Stambler B, Michalski J; TRUST Investigators. Same-day discovery of implantable cardioverter defibrillator dysfunction in the TRUST remote monitoring trial: influence of contrasting messaging systems. Europace. 2013 May;15(5):697-703. doi: 10.1093/europace/eus410. Epub 2012 Dec 19.
- Varma N, Michalski J, Epstein AE, Schweikert R. Automatic remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead and generator performance: the Lumos-T Safely RedUceS RouTine Office Device Follow-Up (TRUST) trial. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010 Oct;3(5):428-36. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.110.951962. Epub 2010 Aug 17.
Study record dates
These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.
Study Major Dates
Study Start
November 1, 2005
Primary Completion (Actual)
June 1, 2009
Study Completion (Actual)
June 1, 2009
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
June 9, 2006
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
June 9, 2006
First Posted (Estimate)
June 13, 2006
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Estimate)
August 3, 2010
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
July 28, 2010
Last Verified
July 1, 2010
More Information
Terms related to this study
Other Study ID Numbers
- 20052069
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.
Clinical Trials on Patient Indicated for an ICD
-
Biotronik, Inc.CompletedPatients Indicated for an ICDUnited States
-
Medtronic Bakken Research CenterMedtronic GmbH GermanyCompletedPatients With an Indication for an ICD Implantation According to the Guidelines
-
Guidant CorporationCompleted
-
Faculty Hospital Kralovske VinohradyCompletedPatients With an Aneurysm of Native Vascular Access Indicated for Surgical TreatmentCzechia
-
Meir Hospital, Kfar Saba, IsraelUnknown
-
Abbott Medical DevicesCompletedThe Patient Meets ACC/AHA/ESC Guidelines for Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) or Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT-D) DeviceUnited Kingdom, Germany
-
Cairo UniversityUnknownBadly Broken Maxillary Premolars Indicated for Extraction
-
Ethicon Endo-SurgeryCompletedBenign or Malignant Disease Indicated for ColectomyUnited States, Belgium, United Kingdom
-
Edwards LifesciencesCompleted
-
Capso Vision, Inc.UnknownPatients Indicated for Periampullary or Pancreaticobiliary ExaminationUnited States
Clinical Trials on Home Monitoring
-
Silesian Centre for Heart DiseasesNational Center for Research and Development, PolandCompleted
-
Deutsches Herzzentrum MuenchenCompletedImprovement of Treatment SatisfactionGermany
-
Pennington Biomedical Research CenterLouisiana State University Health Care Services DivisionCompletedHypertension | Obesity | Diabetes | OverweightUnited States
-
Biotronik FranceBiotronik SE & Co. KGCompletedBradycardia | Pacemaker, ArtificialFrance
-
Biotronik SE & Co. KGTerminatedHeart Block | Bradycardia | Sick Sinus SyndromeUnited Kingdom
-
Biotronik SE & Co. KGTerminatedAtrial Fibrillation | Heart Failure (HF)France, Czech Republic, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, United Kingdom
-
Biotronik SE & Co. KGCompletedVentricular Fibrillation | Ventricular Tachycardia | Congestive Heart FailureDenmark, Germany, Israel, Australia, Austria, Czech Republic, Latvia
-
Western University, CanadaCompleted
-
Sheba Medical CenterEarlySense Ltd.UnknownMyocardial Infarction | Cardiac SurgeryIsrael
-
Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineUnknownHypertension | Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus