Heart Failure, SystolicNCT04264182
STandardized Ultra-conservative Or Physician-directed ICD Programming for Continuous Flow LVAD Support
A study testing ICD programming in people with Heart Failure, Systolic and Left Ventricular Assist Device, run by The Cleveland Clinic at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
This study will evaluate the utilization of an ultra-conservative programming strategy to reduce shocks for ventricular arrhythmias (VA) among patients with heart failure, an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and continuous flow (CF) left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Heart Failure, Systolic, Left Ventricular Assist Device, ICD
- What is being tested?
- ICD programming
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 11 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 3 Feb 2020to 4 Apr 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- 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
Who may be able to join
- Pre-existing ICD
- LVAD placement
Who cannot join
- Non-functional ICD system
- Uncontrolled ventricular arrhythmias within 7 days of enrollment (defined as VT/VF >30 seconds and/or causing hemodynamic instability and/or symptoms of pre-syncope or syncope)
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: STandardized Ultra-conservative Or Physician-directed ICD Programming for SHOCK Reduction Among Patients on Continuous Flow LVAD Support: a Randomized Controlled Trial (STOP SHOCK LVAD Study)
This study will evaluate the utilization of an ultra-conservative programming strategy to reduce shocks for ventricular arrhythmias (VA) among patients with heart failure, an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and continuous flow (CF) left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Patients on LVAD support demonstrate unique hemodynamic tolerability of VA, and the role for ICDs among patients with newer generation CF LVADs remains less clear than the older generation devices. Prior studies have explored extended detection ICD programming to reduce unecessary or potentially avoidable shocks to patients. However, no prospective randomized study to-date has evaluated such programming strategies in the CF LVAD patient population. The study hypothesis is that ultra-conservative (UC) ICD programming will result in a reduction of shocks and an improvement in quality of life without increasing hospitalizations, syncope or death among patients on CF LVAD support, and the primary design is a 1:1 randomization between UC programming over standard, physician discretion programming.
Read the detailed description
The current International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) guidelines provide a class I recommendation for tachy-therapy re-activation in patients with ICDs undergoing LVAD implantation. However, these guidelines reflect a survival benefit observed in cohorts comprised primarily of older-generation pulsatile flow LVADs. While the overall VA prevalence in the LVAD population exceeds 50% with VA usually occurring >200 beats per minute, VA are generally well-tolerated both hemodynamically and symptomatically. Observed LVAD flows do decrease during sustained VA but there are multiple case reports of LVAD patients remaining awake and asymptomatic despite hours of ventricular fibrillation and a large case series reported no deaths and rare syncope due to VA in CF LVAD patients. Contrary to guidelines, contemporary evaluations restricted to CF LVADs show no clear ICD survival benefit in single center studies nor a large, pooled meta-analysis. In fact, propensity-matched analyses of CF LVAD patients in the INTERMACS and UNOS registries have demonstrated increased mortality and more hospitalizations among patients with an active ICD and treated VA. It is unclear in the CF LVAD population whether ICD shocks themselves are harmful or rather identify a higher-acuity patient subgroup. In the general HF population, however, shocks have consistently been associated with worse outcomes. Shock reduction programming resulted in reduced mortality in the MADIT-RIT trial, suggesting shocks may be directly harmful and not only a marker of substrate.
Therefore, the present study will evaluate whether ultra-conservative (UC) programming for ICDs can reduce shocks over standard (physician-discretion) programming among patients with heart failure on CF LVAD support. The model is 1:1 randomization between the two programming strategies for patients with newly implanted CF LVAD devices and a pre-existing ICD. They will be eligible for enrollment during their index hospitalization, and after discharge up to their first outpatient follow-up visit no later than 3 months post discharge. The primary endpoints will be any ICD shock, all-cause mortality, and syncope. The secondary endpoints will be time to first ICD shock, time to first ICD shock for VT/VF, quality of life questionnaire and hospitalizations, including for heart failure and ventricular arrhythmias. The principal exclusion criteria will be pediatric patients, or those without a functional ICD system. Standard of care follow-up will continue thru 24 months.
- Conditions
- Heart Failure, Systolic, Left Ventricular Assist Device, ICD
- Being tested
- ICD programming
- Keywords
- LVAD, ICD, Shock, Ventricular arrhythmia
- Medical subject headings
- Heart Failure, Systolic, Shock
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
ICD programmingOther
Re-programming of the ICD device for VA detection (see above)
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Ultra-conservative ICD programming | Experimental | Single VF zone programming strategy with maximal detection extension to avoid ICD shock delivery with monitoring-only VT detection zones Receives: Other: ICD programming |
| Standard programming (physician discretion) | No intervention | Usual care ICD programming, which is historically unchanged from ICD programming pre-LVAD |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
ICD shock delivery
Number of patients with ICD shock delivery
Measured: Up to 24 months
Mortality
Incidence of all-cause death
Measured: Up to 24 Months
Syncope
Individual occurrence of loss of consciousness
Measured: Up to 24 Months
Secondary outcomes (4)
Time to first ICD shock
Interval of time from baseline to first appropriate/non-appropriate ICD shock
Measured: Up to 24 Months
Time to first ICD shock for VT/VF (appropriate shock)
Interval of time from baseline to first ICD shock for VT/VF (appropriate shock)
Measured: Up to 24 Months
Standard INTERMACS survey
Quality of life measured by INTERMACS survey scored from 1 to 7
Measured: Up to 24 Months
Hospitalization
Individual occurrence of hospitalization
Measured: Up to 24 Months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted11 Feb 2020
- Study start3 Feb 2020
- Primary completion4 Apr 2022
- Study completion4 Apr 2022
Why it stopped: Difficult to enroll patients into the study
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Heart Failure, SystolicStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by The Cleveland ClinicThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- 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
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Prospective. Randomized control trial.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 11 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- The Cleveland Clinic
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Dan Cantillon, The Cleveland Clinic
- Investigators
- Daniel Cantillon, M. D., Principal investigator, The Cleveland Clinic
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04264182
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 19-656
- Status last verified
- Jun 2022
- First submitted
- 31 Jan 2020
- Last updated
- 8 Jun 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 8 Jun 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- STandardized Ultra-conservative Or Physician-directed ICD Programming for SHOCK Reduction Among Patients on Continuous Flow LVAD Support: a Randomized Controlled Trial (STOP SHOCK LVAD Study)
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04264182
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 19-656
- Conditions
- Heart Failure, Systolic, Left Ventricular Assist Device, ICD
- Keywords
- LVAD, ICD, Shock, Ventricular arrhythmia
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- TerminatedReason stopped: Difficult to enroll patients into the study
- Enrolment
- 11 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- The Cleveland ClinicUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 3 Feb 2020 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 4 Apr 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 4 Apr 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 11 Feb 2020 (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.
This study will evaluate the utilization of an ultra-conservative programming strategy to reduce shocks for ventricular arrhythmias (VA) among patients with heart failure, an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and continuous flow (CF) left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Patients on LVAD support demonstrate unique hemodynamic tolerability of VA, and the role for ICDs among patients with newer generation CF LVADs remains less clear than the older generation devices. Prior studies have explored extended detection ICD programming to reduce unecessary or potentially avoidable shocks to patients. However, no prospective randomized study to-date has evaluated such programming strategies in the CF LVAD patient population. The study hypothesis is that ultra-conservative (UC) ICD programming will result in a reduction of shocks and an improvement in quality of life without increasing hospitalizations, syncope or death among patients on CF LVAD support, and the primary design is a 1:1 randomization between UC programming over standard, physician discretion programming.
Detailed description
The current International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) guidelines provide a class I recommendation for tachy-therapy re-activation in patients with ICDs undergoing LVAD implantation. However, these guidelines reflect a survival benefit observed in cohorts comprised primarily of older-generation pulsatile flow LVADs. While the overall VA prevalence in the LVAD population exceeds 50% with VA usually occurring >200 beats per minute, VA are generally well-tolerated both hemodynamically and symptomatically. Observed LVAD flows do decrease during sustained VA but there are multiple case reports of LVAD patients remaining awake and asymptomatic despite hours of ventricular fibrillation and a large case series reported no deaths and rare syncope due to VA in CF LVAD patients. Contrary to guidelines, contemporary evaluations restricted to CF LVADs show no clear ICD survival benefit in single center studies nor a large, pooled meta-analysis. In fact, propensity-matched analyses of CF LVAD patients in the INTERMACS and UNOS registries have demonstrated increased mortality and more hospitalizations among patients with an active ICD and treated VA. It is unclear in the CF LVAD population whether ICD shocks themselves are harmful or rather identify a higher-acuity patient subgroup. In the general HF population, however, shocks have consistently been associated with worse outcomes. Shock reduction programming resulted in reduced mortality in the MADIT-RIT trial, suggesting shocks may be directly harmful and not only a marker of substrate.
Therefore, the present study will evaluate whether ultra-conservative (UC) programming for ICDs can reduce shocks over standard (physician-discretion) programming among patients with heart failure on CF LVAD support. The model is 1:1 randomization between the two programming strategies for patients with newly implanted CF LVAD devices and a pre-existing ICD. They will be eligible for enrollment during their index hospitalization, and after discharge up to their first outpatient follow-up visit no later than 3 months post discharge. The primary endpoints will be any ICD shock, all-cause mortality, and syncope. The secondary endpoints will be time to first ICD shock, time to first ICD shock for VT/VF, quality of life questionnaire and hospitalizations, including for heart failure and ventricular arrhythmias. The principal exclusion criteria will be pediatric patients, or those without a functional ICD system. Standard of care follow-up will continue thru 24 months.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Prospective. Randomized control trial.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Ultra-conservative ICD programming | Experimental | Other: ICD programmingSingle VF zone programming strategy with maximal detection extension to avoid ICD shock delivery with monitoring-only VT detection zones |
| Standard programming (physician discretion) | No intervention | –Usual care ICD programming, which is historically unchanged from ICD programming pre-LVAD |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Pre-existing ICD
- LVAD placement
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Non-functional ICD system
- Uncontrolled ventricular arrhythmias within 7 days of enrollment (defined as VT/VF >30 seconds and/or causing hemodynamic instability and/or symptoms of pre-syncope or syncope)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| ICD programmingRe-programming of the ICD device for VA detection (see above) | Other | Ultra-conservative ICD programming |
Primary outcome
ICD shock delivery
Time frame: Up to 24 months
Number of patients with ICD shock delivery
Mortality
Time frame: Up to 24 Months
Incidence of all-cause death
Syncope
Time frame: Up to 24 Months
Individual occurrence of loss of consciousness
4 secondary outcomes
Time to first ICD shock
Time frame: Up to 24 Months
Time to first ICD shock for VT/VF (appropriate shock)
Time frame: Up to 24 Months
Standard INTERMACS survey
Time frame: Up to 24 Months
Hospitalization
Time frame: Up to 24 Months
Results and safety
The study was stopped early (reason given: Difficult to enroll patients into the study). Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 8 Jun 2022.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Heart Failure, Systolic
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study to Learn More About How Safe Finerenone is, When it is Taken for a Longer Time With Standard Treatment, in Children and Young Adults With Heart Failure and Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction
Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction, Heart Failure (Pediatric)
RecruitingPhase 1/2
Endocardial Delivery for Myocardial Regeneration Using Allogeneic iPSC-derived Cardiomyocyte Spheroids for HF With Systolic Dysfunction (EMERALD Study)
Heart Failure, Ischemic Heart Failure
Recruiting
Advancing Clinical Heart Failure Outcomes Leveraging Defibrillation Lead Implant System for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing
Heart Failure, Systolic Bundle Branch Block, Left
Recruiting
The Canadian CABG or PCI in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Trial (STICH3C)
Coronary Artery Disease, Heart Failure Systolic
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study to Learn More About How Well Finerenone Works, How Safe it is, and How it Moves Into, Through, and Out of the Body Compared to Placebo When Taken With Standard Treatment in Children With Heart Failure and Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction
Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction, Heart Failure (Pediatric)
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.
Daniel Cantillon, M. D. principal investigator
The Cleveland Clinic
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing ICD programming in people with Heart Failure, Systolic and Left Ventricular Assist Device, run by The Cleveland Clinic 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 2 inclusion and 2 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 8 Jun 2022. 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 (reason given: Difficult to enroll patients into the study). 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.
What does the primary outcome measure?
ICD shock delivery (time frame: Up to 24 months). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. 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 8 Jun 2022.