Atrial FibrillationCLENCT03223207
CareLink Express (CLE Research)
An observational study of Atrial Fibrillation, run by Baylor Research Institute.
Trial summary
The primary objective of this research is to determine if evaluating CIEDs using CareLink Express® can lead to shorter time to interrogation in the Emergency Department compared to evaluation of devices using traditional evaluation procedures. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Atrial Fibrillation
- How many people
- 60 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Mar 2016to 27 Aug 2018
- How long will I take part?
- 1 Day
- 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 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Patients who arrive to the Emergency Department with a problem they presume to be cardiac in nature.
Who may be able to join
- 1) Patients who present to the ED with a problem they believe to be cardiac in nature.
Who cannot join
- Patients who present to the ED after transmitting a remote device evaluation within the last 24 hours.
- Patients referred to the ED from a physician's office or other health care facility where the CIED has already been interrogated or evaluated.
- Patients in cardiac arrest or other life threatening situations.
About this study
The primary objective of this research is to determine if evaluating CIEDs using CareLink Express® can lead to shorter time to interrogation in the Emergency Department compared to evaluation of devices using traditional evaluation procedures. The goal of the research is to determine if patients evaluated by CareLink Express® have a reduction of "time to interrogation" compared to the traditional patient cohort.
Secondary objectives of the study are to determine any significant differences in the two populations regarding:
- Health care resource utilization including total charges for ED care.
- Number of patients leaving the ED without being seen (LWBS) or left without the device interrogation completed.
- Device related issues detected.
Read the detailed description
Background:
Over the past 15 years the number of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices (CIEDs) implanted has increased dramatically. This is due in part to the aging of the population in general, but primarily due to expanded indications for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronization pacemaker therapy (CRT-P) devices, and CRT devices with defibrillator capabilities ("biventricular ICDs" or CRT-D devices). As more patients with structural heart disease survive longer, and as more CIEDs are placed, the number of patients requiring treatment in the emergency departments for arrhythmias and potential device-related matters has increased.
When a patient with a CIED experiences a problem they presume to be cardiac in nature, they often go to the emergency room to seek care. Most emergency departments (ED) are neither equipped to interrogate the CIED, nor staffed with personnel trained to interrogate the CIED. These CIEDs often record data that can assist the physician in the formulation of a diagnostic and treatment strategy tailored to the specific needs of the patient. However, interrogation of the device is dependent on proprietary programming equipment that is not routinely kept in the emergency department. The programming equipment has traditionally been a "stand-alone" unit, which can store the data from the device interrogation (onto a USB drive or floppy disk), but does not have the capability to transmit the data to the patient's physician for rapid interpretation. In addition, ED personnel are not routinely trained to assess CIEDs. In most health care institutions, it is standard practice for a representative of the manufacturer to be contacted so the device can be evaluated. The representative must then travel to the ED with the programming equipment to interrogate the CIED on site. After interrogation, either the representative discusses the findings with the ED physician, or calls the physician that manages the patient's device. The process of in-person device evaluation can be cumbersome and inefficient, especially in an emergency setting. The time involved in the device interrogation process can cause delays in patient care and add unnecessary costs for the patient and health care institution.
Methods:
Patients with CIEDs will be evaluated in the ED setting. Patients will be divided into two cohorts. Each cohort will have a minimum of 50 patients.
The control group will include CIED patients who have been evaluated in the ED at The Heart Hospital Baylor Plano and Baylor Regional Medical Center at Plano. A minimum of 50 devices not compatible with the CareLink Express® system will be prospectively interrogated in the traditional evaluation method using the device manufacturer representative.
The study group will include CIED patients who present to the ED and receive a device evaluation using the CareLink Express® system. A minimum of 50 devices will be prospectively evaluated using CareLink Express®.
The patient's presenting symptoms in the ED include any medical conditions (not just cardiac).
Consent will be obtained from the subject after treatment has occurred in the ED and prior to release. Consent can be obtained from the subject or the subject's Legally Authorized Representative. This will ensure that treatment is not delayed or altered for research purposes.
Initial data will be collected using a Data Collection Form. The research staff or a research trained Emergency Department staff member will complete the Data Form.
Data will be collected by the research coordinators who will collect the Data Collection Forms from the ED at The Heart Hospital Baylor Plano and Baylor Regional Medical Center at Plano. The Data Collection Form will be used by the research coordinators to determine the patient's study cohort.
Other data will be collected by the research coordinators using the hospital EMR and Financial systems.
Data Collection:
Criteria for the hospital and ED encounters will be extracted from the hospital EMR, the Data Collection Form, or the hospital financial system. Device data will be extracted from the device report completed at the time of the device interrogation.
- Conditions
- Atrial Fibrillation
- Medical subject headings
- Atrial Fibrillation
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control Group | The control group will include CIED patients who have been evaluated in the ED at The Heart Hospital Baylor Plano and Baylor Regional Medical Center at Plano. A minimum of 50 devices not compatible with the CareLink Express® system will be prospectively interrogated in the traditional evaluation method using the device manufacturer representative. | |
| CareLink Express | The study group will include CIED patients who present to the ED and receive a device evaluation using the CareLink Express® system. A minimum of 50 devices will be prospectively evaluated using CareLink Express®. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Patients evaluated by CareLink Express have a reduction of "time of interrogation" compared to the traditional patient cohort.
The primary objective of this research is to determine if evaluating CIEDs using CareLink Express® can lead to shorter time to interrogation in the Emergency Department compared to evaluation of devices using traditional evaluation procedures.
Measured: 1 year
Secondary outcomes (1)
Significant differences between the two populations from data analysis
Health care resource utilization including total charges for ED care, number of patients leaving the ED without being seen (LWBS) or left without the device interrogation completed, or device related issues detected.
Measured: 2 years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted21 Jul 2017
- Study startMar 2016
- Primary completion27 Aug 2018
- Study completion27 Aug 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Atrial FibrillationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
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
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (actual)
- Target duration
- 1 Day
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Baylor Research Institute
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Medtronic
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03223207
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 015-234
- Acronym
- CLE
- Status last verified
- Jul 2017
- First submitted
- 25 Feb 2016
- Last updated
- 22 May 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 May 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- CareLink Express (CLE Research)
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03223207
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CLE / 015-234
- Conditions
- Atrial Fibrillation
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Baylor Research InstituteUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Medtronic
- Study start
- Mar 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 27 Aug 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- 27 Aug 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 21 Jul 2017 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The primary objective of this research is to determine if evaluating CIEDs using CareLink Express® can lead to shorter time to interrogation in the Emergency Department compared to evaluation of devices using traditional evaluation procedures. The goal of the research is to determine if patients evaluated by CareLink Express® have a reduction of "time to interrogation" compared to the traditional patient cohort.
Secondary objectives of the study are to determine any significant differences in the two populations regarding:
- Health care resource utilization including total charges for ED care.
- Number of patients leaving the ED without being seen (LWBS) or left without the device interrogation completed.
- Device related issues detected.
Detailed description
Background:
Over the past 15 years the number of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices (CIEDs) implanted has increased dramatically. This is due in part to the aging of the population in general, but primarily due to expanded indications for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronization pacemaker therapy (CRT-P) devices, and CRT devices with defibrillator capabilities ("biventricular ICDs" or CRT-D devices). As more patients with structural heart disease survive longer, and as more CIEDs are placed, the number of patients requiring treatment in the emergency departments for arrhythmias and potential device-related matters has increased.
When a patient with a CIED experiences a problem they presume to be cardiac in nature, they often go to the emergency room to seek care. Most emergency departments (ED) are neither equipped to interrogate the CIED, nor staffed with personnel trained to interrogate the CIED. These CIEDs often record data that can assist the physician in the formulation of a diagnostic and treatment strategy tailored to the specific needs of the patient. However, interrogation of the device is dependent on proprietary programming equipment that is not routinely kept in the emergency department. The programming equipment has traditionally been a "stand-alone" unit, which can store the data from the device interrogation (onto a USB drive or floppy disk), but does not have the capability to transmit the data to the patient's physician for rapid interpretation. In addition, ED personnel are not routinely trained to assess CIEDs. In most health care institutions, it is standard practice for a representative of the manufacturer to be contacted so the device can be evaluated. The representative must then travel to the ED with the programming equipment to interrogate the CIED on site. After interrogation, either the representative discusses the findings with the ED physician, or calls the physician that manages the patient's device. The process of in-person device evaluation can be cumbersome and inefficient, especially in an emergency setting. The time involved in the device interrogation process can cause delays in patient care and add unnecessary costs for the patient and health care institution.
Methods:
Patients with CIEDs will be evaluated in the ED setting. Patients will be divided into two cohorts. Each cohort will have a minimum of 50 patients.
The control group will include CIED patients who have been evaluated in the ED at The Heart Hospital Baylor Plano and Baylor Regional Medical Center at Plano. A minimum of 50 devices not compatible with the CareLink Express® system will be prospectively interrogated in the traditional evaluation method using the device manufacturer representative.
The study group will include CIED patients who present to the ED and receive a device evaluation using the CareLink Express® system. A minimum of 50 devices will be prospectively evaluated using CareLink Express®.
The patient's presenting symptoms in the ED include any medical conditions (not just cardiac).
Consent will be obtained from the subject after treatment has occurred in the ED and prior to release. Consent can be obtained from the subject or the subject's Legally Authorized Representative. This will ensure that treatment is not delayed or altered for research purposes.
Initial data will be collected using a Data Collection Form. The research staff or a research trained Emergency Department staff member will complete the Data Form.
Data will be collected by the research coordinators who will collect the Data Collection Forms from the ED at The Heart Hospital Baylor Plano and Baylor Regional Medical Center at Plano. The Data Collection Form will be used by the research coordinators to determine the patient's study cohort.
Other data will be collected by the research coordinators using the hospital EMR and Financial systems.
Data Collection:
Criteria for the hospital and ED encounters will be extracted from the hospital EMR, the Data Collection Form, or the hospital financial system. Device data will be extracted from the device report completed at the time of the device interrogation.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Target follow-up
- 1 Day
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control Group | – | –The control group will include CIED patients who have been evaluated in the ED at The Heart Hospital Baylor Plano and Baylor Regional Medical Center at Plano. A minimum of 50 devices not compatible with the CareLink Express® system will be prospectively interrogated in the traditional evaluation method using the device manufacturer representative. |
| CareLink Express | – | –The study group will include CIED patients who present to the ED and receive a device evaluation using the CareLink Express® system. A minimum of 50 devices will be prospectively evaluated using CareLink Express®. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Patients who arrive to the Emergency Department with a problem they presume to be cardiac in nature.
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- 1) Patients who present to the ED with a problem they believe to be cardiac in nature.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Patients who present to the ED after transmitting a remote device evaluation within the last 24 hours.
- Patients referred to the ED from a physician's office or other health care facility where the CIED has already been interrogated or evaluated.
- Patients in cardiac arrest or other life threatening situations.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Patients evaluated by CareLink Express have a reduction of "time of interrogation" compared to the traditional patient cohort.
Time frame: 1 year
The primary objective of this research is to determine if evaluating CIEDs using CareLink Express® can lead to shorter time to interrogation in the Emergency Department compared to evaluation of devices using traditional evaluation procedures.
1 secondary outcome
Significant differences between the two populations from data analysis
Time frame: 2 years
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 22 May 2019.
Related trials for Atrial Fibrillation
Active, not recruitingObservational study
FARAPULSE™ Pulsed Field Ablation System
Paroxysmal AF
Not yet recruiting
Mazdutide for Reducing Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence After Catheter Ablation in Obese Patients
Atrial Fibrillation (AF), Ablation Treatment
Recruiting
OPTION-EMEA Clinical Trial
Atrial Fibrillation (AF), Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation
Active, not recruiting
A Study of VARIPULSE Catheter and TRUPULSE Generator With VARIPULSE Pro Software in Participants With PAF or PsAF
Atrial Fibrillation
Not yet recruiting
Mobile Clinic-Supported, Village Doctor-Led Screening and Integrated Care for Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure Comorbidity in Rural China (MOVE-AF HF)
Atrial Fibrillation (AF), Heart Failure
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Atrial Fibrillation, run by Baylor Research Institute.
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 3 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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 May 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
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 is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
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.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Patients evaluated by CareLink Express have a reduction of "time of interrogation" compared to the traditional patient cohort. (time frame: 1 year). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
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 22 May 2019.