Virtual E-health System for Pacemakers (VIRTUES PM)

Virtual Integrated Reliable Transformative User-driven E-health System for Pacemakers

While remote monitoring (RM) technology is currently available and has permitted surveillance and device assessment from any patient location, the use has been inconsistent in Canada, where only 8500 out of a potential 120 000 patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are enrolled in this program. This technology is in widespread use worldwide for all CIEDs but in Canada, it is utilized primarily for implantable defibrillators, but not pacemakers. Whereas most of the trials were designed to evaluate the efficacy of RM in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients, in the pacemaker (PM) population, there has been work performed already to demonstrate an increase in detection of frequency of adverse clinical events and a reduction in reaction time to those events by RM. Based on all the available literature, it appears that RM benefits both patients and healthcare systems. Overall, studies have demonstrated that RM can be used safely in all device patient-populations, with the exception of pacemaker-dependent patients.

There have been no studies that have evaluated RM only follow up, nor have there been any studies evaluating pacemaker-dependent patients. This study that will safely assess the use of RM only, with in-clinic visits when necessary, that uses the patient-centered electronic platform developed by the Cardiac Arrhythmia Network of Canada (CANet) to perform PM follow up safely, in a more cost-effective manner.

Study Overview

• Status: Active, not recruiting
• Conditions: Pacemaker
• Intervention / Treatment: Other: Standard of care; Device: Remote Monitoring

Detailed Description

This is a Canadian multicenter randomized controlled trial to assess remote patient management. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion, stratified by pacemaker dependence and by center to either remote patient management of standard of care.

Remote patient management (intervention group):

• Patients will be followed by remote monitoring only. Transmissions will occur at six monthly intervals, with no in-clinic visits. If there is an actionable event on the remote transmission, patients will be seen at their closest community device clinic. The proposed intervention would eliminate any routine visits.
• Newly implanted pacemaker patients will be seen after the initial implant at the hub site, within 48 hours and then within 3 months to optimize programming for subsequent RM visits. Thereafter, all follow-up will occur through remote monitoring every six months. Unscheduled remote transmissions may also occur. Using a combination of remote monitoring, and novel technology, VIRTUES, patients will be managed outside of the clinic.
• Patients will be provided with real-time knowledge of success of their remote transmission and the status of the remote through a web-based portal called VIRTUES.
• Virtual patient record - all patient information in the intervention arm will be contained within an information cloud that will be accessible by patients; access to their own data may be granted by the patient themselves to permit delivery of care remotely, and to permit after hours follow up to be performed by the on call personnel.

Standard of care (comparison group):

The standard arm will be required to have in-clinic visits at yearly intervals. These patients would not have access to the virtual patient cloud or to remote monitoring.

Pacemaker programming: All patients in both arms will undergo programming as per the ASSERT II protocol (previously published) to optimize pacemaker parameters and detection of atrial and ventricular high rate episodes.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 848
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• Canada
  • Alberta
    • Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N 4Z6
      • Foothills Hospital
  • British Columbia
    • Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, V8T 1Z8
      • Victoria Cardiac Arrhythmia Trials
  • Newfoundland and Labrador
    • St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
      • Memorial University of Newfoundland Hospital
  • Nova Scotia
    • Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3H 3A7
      • QEII Health Sciences Center
  • Ontario
    • Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
      • St. Mary's General Hospital
    • London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 5W5
      • London Health Sciences Centre
    • Newmarket, Ontario, Canada, L3Y 2P9
      • Southlake Regional Health Centre
  • Quebec
    • Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H1T 1C8
      • Montreal Heart Institute
    • Montreal, Quebec, Canada
      • Hopital Sacre Coeur
    • Québec, Quebec, Canada
      • Hôpital Laval
    • Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada, J1H 5N4
      • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire du Sherbrooke

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Patients with a Medtronic or Abbott pacemaker capable of remote monitoring.
• Able to provide consent.
• Age >/= 18 years

Exclusion Criteria:

• No access to a family physician or general practioner
• Participation in the RPM CIED pilot study
• Unreliable automated capture verification function by the device in pacemaker-dependent patients

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

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Remote Patient Management; Remote monitoring only	Device: Remote Monitoring; Remote Monitoring only + VIRTUES
Placebo Comparator: Standard of Care; In-clinic visits	Other: Standard of care; In-Clinic visits only

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Time to major adverse cardiac event (MACE)	Includes: death, stroke, hospitalization for a cardiovascular cause (unplanned hospitalization with an overnight stay in hospital) due to one of the following causes: acute coronary syndrome, presyncope / syncope, transient ischemic attack / stroke, ventricular arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, flutter, pulmonary embolism / deep vein thrombosis /systemic embolism, worsening congestive heart failure including pulmonary edema or dyspnea of cardiac origin.	18 months
Cost effectiveness	Cost comparison between groups (VIRTUES strategy versus Standard of Care). Analysis will take the form of a cost utility analysis with cost effectiveness assessed in terms of the incremental cost per quality life year (QALY)	18 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Quality of Life - Short Form (SF36)	The SF-36 consists of eight scaled scores, which are the weighted sums of the questions in their section. Each scale is directly transformed into a 0-100 scale on the assumption that each question carries equal weight. The lower the score the more disability. The eight sections are: vitality, physical functioning, bodily pain, general health perceptions, physical role functioning, emotional role functioning, social role functioning, and mental health	18 months
Quality of Life - Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS)	The FPAS produces scores that range from 0-100, where higher scores indicate increased device acceptance.	18 months
Quality of Life - Florida Shock Anxiety Scale (FSAS)	The FSAS produces scores that range from 10-50. Higher scores signify increased shock anxiety.	18 months
Quality of Life - Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ)	Individual item analysis will be used in this study. The personal control score is the response to item 3. The treatment control score is the response to item 4. Illness concern is measured by item 6. This reflects a combination of emotional and cognitive representations. Scores on these individual items range from 0-10 where higher scores on personal and treatment concern are reflected in higher scores. Higher scores on illness concern are reflected in higher scores.	18 months
Number of patients with device-related ER visits	Rate of device-related ER visits (<24 hours)	18 months
Number of patients with syncope	Rate of syncope	18 months
Number of patients experiencing ventricular arrhythmia events	Rate of ventricular arrhythmia episodes detected by the pacemaker	18 months
Number of patients with atrial fibrillation	Rate of AF greater than 6 minutes detected by the pacemaker	18 months

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Ratika Parkash
• Collaborators: Medtronic; Abbott; Cardiac Arrhythmia Network of Canada
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Ratika Parkash, MD FRCPC, Nova Scotia Health Authority

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): September 15, 2020
• Primary Completion (Estimated): May 31, 2026
• Study Completion (Estimated): June 30, 2026

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: January 23, 2018
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: August 15, 2018
• First Posted (Actual): August 17, 2018

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): May 15, 2026
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: May 12, 2026
• Last Verified: May 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Health Services Administration; Health Care Quality, Access, and Evaluation; Quality of Health Care; Quality Indicators, Health Care; Standard of Care
• Other Study ID Numbers: RP-006

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No