Combining Myocardial Strain and Cardiac CT to Optimize Left Ventricular Lead Placement in CRT Treatment (CRT clinic)

March 27, 2019 updated by: Region Skane

Individually Tailored Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy - Combing Myocardial Strain and Cardiac CT to Optimize Left Ventricular Lead Placement in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

For patients with advanced heart failure, Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) has been a major improvement. The treatment improves symptoms and prolongs life in selected patients with heart failure. However, with the current selection criteria and methods for implanting the pacemaker, only 60-70% of the patients derive significant benefit from the treatment.

New imaging techniques, including advanced ultrasound and computed tomography, in combination with new versatile multi-pole electrodes, have made an individually tailored therapy possible. Using these techniques in combination, the study will investigate the effect of individually based "optimal" placement of the pacemaker electrodes vs. standard care. The optimal LV electrode position is defined as pacing a viable segment with the latest mechanical delay, targeting a specific segment of the coronary sinus as visualised on cardiac CT. The hypothesis is that this will increase the number of positive responders from 65% to 85%.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

100

Phase

  • Not Applicable

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

      • Lund, Sweden, 221 85
        • Skåne University Hospital

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:

  • Symptomatic heart failure (New York Heart Association functional class II - IV) despite stabile optimal medical therapy.
  • Wide QRS ≥ 120 milliseconds on standard ECG.
  • LV systolic dysfunction (EF ≤ 35%).
  • Written informed consent.
  • Accepted for CRT-P or CRT-D treatment

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Life expectancy < 12 months.
  • Recent myocardial infarction (< 3 months).
  • Significant valve disease
  • Chronic atrial fibrillation
  • Pregnancy
  • Severely impaired renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 30 ml/min)
  • Unable to give written informed consent.

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: Quadruple

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Imaging guided LV lead positioning
LV lead positioning guided by echocardiography (mechanical strain evaluation by speckle tracking) in combination with cardiac CT. A viable segment with the latest mechanical activation is targeted, and an appropriate "optimal" cardiac vein segment is then chosen using the CT images.
No Intervention: Standard LV lead positioning
The LV lead position is decided at the discretion of the treating physician. Cardiac CT images are available for viewing, but no echocardiography data regarding segmental myocardial strain are available.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Positive response to CRT treatment
Time Frame: 6 months

The primary efficacy endpoint will evaluate the effect of echocardiography and cardiac CT guided placement of the left ventricular lead vs standard care (i.e. position of the left ventricular lead at the discretion of the treating physician).

Number of patients with positive response to CRT (YES or NO). A positive response is defined as survival in combination with either a reduction in end systolic left ventricular volume ≥ 15% by echocardiography ("volume responder") and / or improvement ≥ 1 NYHA class and ≥10% improvement in 6 minute hall walk test ("clinical responder").

6 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Response to CRT (on-treatment analysis)
Time Frame: 6 months
Evaluate the effect of optimal LV placement (post hoc analysis of both groups) versus non-optimal LV lead placement. Optimal lead placement is defined as pacing from a viable segment with the latest mechanical activation (by myocardial strain measurement). Outcome measure is the same as in the primary outcome measure.
6 months
Heart failure morbidity
Time Frame: 6 months 2 years and 5 years
Evaluate the effect of echocardiography guided LV lead placement compared to standard care in relation to hospitalisation for worsening of heart failure
6 months 2 years and 5 years
Morbidity and mortality
Time Frame: 6 months 2 years and 5 years
Evaluate the effect of echocardiography guided LV lead placement compared to standard care in relation to a composite endpoint of all cause mortality and hospitalisation for worsening of heart failure (2 years and 5 years).
6 months 2 years and 5 years
Mortality
Time Frame: 6 months, 2 years and 5 years
Evaluate the effect of echocardiography guided LV lead placement compared to standard care in relation to all cause mortality
6 months, 2 years and 5 years
Left ventricular dyssynchrony
Time Frame: 6 months
Evaluate the effect of echocardiography guided LV lead placement compared to standard care in relation to echocardiography measured changes in LV dyssynchrony
6 months
Ventricular tachycardia
Time Frame: 6 months 2 years and 5 years
Evaluate the effect of echocardiography guided LV lead placement compared to standard care in relation to number of treated ventricular tachycardia episodes
6 months 2 years and 5 years
Quality of life
Time Frame: 6 months 2 years 5 years
Evaluate the effect of echocardiography guided LV lead placement compared to standard care in relation to the change in the Minnesota Living with heart failure Quality of Life questionnaire
6 months 2 years 5 years
Myocardial viability
Time Frame: Peroperative
Evaluate the concordance in viability assessment using myocardial strain evaluation (echocardiography) compared to cardiac MRI.
Peroperative
Biochemical markers of heart failure
Time Frame: 6 months
Evaluate the effect of echocardiography guided LV lead placement compared to standard care in relation to the change in blood natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels
6 months
Left ventricular systolic function
Time Frame: 6 months
Evaluate the effect of echocardiography guided LV lead placement compared to standard care in relation to the change in LV ejection fraction
6 months
Myocardial viability
Time Frame: 6 months
Evaluate the concordance between echocardiography (strain evaluation with speckle tracking) and cardiac MRI viability images (late gadolinium enhancement).
6 months
MRI left ventricular dyssynchrony
Time Frame: 6 months
Evaluate if MRI dyssynchroni evaluation has incremental value over echocardiography alone for predicting the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy.
6 months
Left ventricular diastolic dimension
Time Frame: 6 months
Evaluate the effect of echocardiography guided LV lead placement compared to standard care in relation to the change in left ventricular diastolic dimension
6 months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Collaborators

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Rasmus Borgquist, MD PhD, Region Skane

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.

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 (Actual)

August 1, 2011

Primary Completion (Actual)

January 1, 2018

Study Completion (Actual)

December 1, 2018

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

August 25, 2011

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 30, 2011

First Posted (Estimate)

August 31, 2011

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

March 28, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 27, 2019

Last Verified

March 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

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 Heart Failure

Clinical Trials on Imaging guided LV lead positioning

Subscribe