AzTrials
AzTrials

Congenital DisordersNCT00267423

Biventricular Pacing in the Pediatric Population

An observational study of Congenital Disorders, run by Children's Healthcare of Atlanta at 1 site in United States.

Terminated

Stopped early. The study ended before it was planned to and will not resume.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Epicardial biventricular pacing is a safe and feasible method of pacing in young patients. Over the last two years, physicians at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta have been implanting epicardial BiV pacing systems in children determined to have ventricular dyssynchrony caused by numerous cardiac… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages Up to 21 years
Conditions the study is for
Congenital Disorders
How many people
12 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
Jan 2002to not given
Phase
Observational
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages Up to 21 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Child, Adult

Who may be able to join

  • any pediatric patient who received an epicardial BiV pacing system at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta between January 2002 and May 2004.

Who cannot join

  • those patients who do not meet inclusion criteria

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site
  • Children's Healthcare of Atlanta

    Atlanta, Georgia, 30322

Other trials in United States

About this study

Official title: A Single Center, Retrospective Study of the Safety and Feasibility of Epicardial Biventricular Pacing in the Pediatric Population

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Epicardial biventricular pacing is a safe and feasible method of pacing in young patients.

Over the last two years, physicians at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta have been implanting epicardial BiV pacing systems in children determined to have ventricular dyssynchrony caused by numerous cardiac diagnoses. The decision to use these pacing systems was based on the knowledge gained by adult studies. Since the use of these pacing systems in the pediatric population has not been formally studied, we propose a study to retrospectively review the safety and feasibility of epicardial BiV pacing in pediatric patients. This study will involve the review of the medical records of children who received epicardial BiV systems at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta between January 2002 and May 2004.

Read the detailed description

Synchronous activation of the right and left ventricles requires a normally functioning sinoatrial (SA) node, atrioventricular (AV) node and ventricular conduction system. When AV conduction has been interrupted by congenital heart block or acquired damage to the AV node, impulses arising from the SA node do not reach the ventricular myocardium. Standard therapy involves the placement of a permanent pacing system. In young children, such a system consists of either placing a single epicardial pacing lead on the right ventricular (RV) surface or separate epicardial pacing leads placed on the right atrium (RA) and RV. The former is commonly referred to as single chamber pacing and the latter as dual chamber pacing [AV sequential, single-site (SS) ventricular pacing]. The decision regarding single versus dual chamber lead placement is heavily influenced by operator convenience in the setting of a limited sternotomy. The main functions of the pacing system are sensing spontaneous activity and delivering pacing stimuli when appropriate. The two major advantages of dual chamber pacing are maintenance of physiologic heart rates and restoration of AV synchrony. The disadvantage of this system, however, is that the intrinsic synchronous depolarization of the ventricles is interrupted by initial paced ventricular activation in the RV rather than via the specialized His-Purkinje system; thus desynchronizing ventricular electrical activation. In addition, recent studies have demonstrated that despite early institution of cardiac pacing, some infants and children with AV block (AVB) develop late-onset left ventricular (LV) dilated cardiomyopathy over a follow-up period of 10 years.(1) The underlying mechanisms for this cardiomyopathy are not clear. A novel method of pacing (biventricular pacing, BiV) has been used in adult patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB, which results in dysynchronous ventricular activation) and congestive heart failure (CHF). Biventricular pacing in adults involves transvenous endocardial pacing leads placed in the RA, RV apex and LV via the coronary sinus. This results in "resynchronization" of ventricular activation, presumably by restoring a "normal" ventricular activation sequence, and has been associated with decreased CHF symptoms and improved ventricular function.

Children with acquired or congenital AVB, on the other hand, typically have a narrow QRS; owing to a midline ventricular escape rhythm and synchronous ventricular activation. The typical modes of pacing (VVI or DDD, single-site ventricular) in these children result in interventricular dyssynchrony, as described above. Recent studies in adult populations (DAVID, AAIR vs. DDDR in SSS, and MOde Selection trials)(2-4) demonstrated the detrimental effects of standard single-site ventricular pacing. Unfortunately, children with acquired and/or congenital AVB do not have the option of pacing or no pacing, and are destined to potentially decades of being 100% ventricular paced. This further emphasizes the importance of optimizing pacing strategies in this young, vulnerable population.

Specific Aim 1 (SA1): To evaluate the safety and feasibility of biventricular epicardial pacing in children.

Keywords
pediatric, cardiac, electrophysiology, epicardial biventricular pacing
Medical subject headings
Congenital, Hereditary, and Neonatal Diseases and Abnormalities

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted21 Dec 2005 (estimated)
  2. Study startJan 2002

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Defined population
Time perspective
Retrospective
Enrolment
12 participants
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT00267423
Sponsor's protocol ID
04-040
Status last verified
May 2007
First submitted
19 Dec 2005
Last updated
4 May 2007
Results posted
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Congenital Disorders, run by Children's Healthcare of Atlanta at 1 site in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: stopped early, as of the sponsor's last update on 4 May 2007. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study was stopped early. Results are not available in the source record.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 4 May 2007.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in