Safety and Efficacy Study of IPG Patient With Home Monitoring

Bradyarrhythmia Clinical Trial

Official title:

Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy of the Management of Pacemaker Patients Followed-up Via Home Monitoring vs. Conventional In-Office Follow-up

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT01523704
• Other study ID #: atHome Study
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: January 2012
• Est. completion date: February 2016

Study information

• Verified date: January 2021
• Source: Biotronik Japan, Inc.
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

The number of patients with implantable pulse generator (IPG) has steadily increased in Japan causing increment in number of in office follow-ups and greater burden on many hospitals.

The purpose of this multicenter randomized study is to demonstrate that BIOTRONIK Home Monitoring system reduces office follow-up visits without compromising patient safety.

Description:

Patients will be randomized into HM follow-up only (Group 1) or HM & in-office follow-up (Group 2) and will be followed-up for 27 months.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 1327
• Est. completion date: February 2016
• Est. primary completion date: February 2016
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: All
• Age group: 20 Years and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Indicated for IPG implantation under Japanese guidelines

• Implanted within the last 45 days or being considered for implant with a BIOTRONIK IPG with Home Monitoring

• Able to utilize HM system throughout the study

• Ability to give informed consent

• Geographically stable and able to return for follow-ups for 27 months

• Over 20 years old

• Patient able to understand and follow the procedure stated in protocol

Exclusion Criteria:

• Contraindicated for IPG under Japanese guidelines

• Patients who are currently included in another cardiac clinical study

• Patients with expected life period of less than two years

• Patients who might undergo heart transplantation in next two years.

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Bradyarrhythmia
• Bradycardia

Intervention

Device:
• BIOTRONIK Home Monitoring System
Home Monitoring system transfers implantable device's data to the main server via internet.
• BIOTRONIK Home Monitoring System with In-office Follow-up

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
Japan	Fujita Health University	Toyoake	Aichi

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Biotronik Japan, Inc.

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Japan, 

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Evaluation for Equivalence of the Number of Patients Who Meet the Composite Safety Endpoint Between Home Monitoring Group(HM) and Control Group Which is HM + Conventional In-office Follow-up	The purpose of the primary endpoint is to compare the composite safety endpoint, Safety Event Rate (SER) which includes death, incidence of strokes and cardiovascular related serious adverse events requiring surgical interventions (e.g. device explants or lead revision) between HM Group and Control Group.; Safety will be evaluated in the following testable hypothesis in an equivalence (non-inferiority) format: HØ: The safety event rate (SER) for a 24-month duration for Group 1 is not equivalent to the SER for Group 2.; SER Group 1 - SER Group 2 = Ha : The safety event rate (SER) for a 12-month duration for Group 1 is equivalent to the SER for Group 2 SER Group 1 - SER Group 2 < Where, ( )represents the allowable clinically significant difference. 5% was set for the study.; A rejection of the null hypothesis (HØ) will indicate that the safety event rate for Group 1 is equivalent (non-inferior) to that of Group 2.	2 years
Secondary	The Median (IQR) Numbers of In-office Follow-up(FU) Visits Per Patient-year	Average numbers of outpatient follow-up(FU)s per patient are compared between Home Monitoring(HM) group and the control group, assessing total numbers of outpatient FUs combining regular and additional FUs. If the average number of visits in HM group is significantly less than that in Control group, it would serve as supporting evidence that the number of outpatient FUs can be reduced with HM.; Analysis is performed on those patients that had a regular 3 months-FU following Intention to treat(ITT) principle. The analysis population of endpoint can be expected to be larger than the analysis population of the primary endpoints because patients with drop-out after the 3-months FU, but before the 27 months-FU will be included.; The numbers of FU visits that occur in the 2 groups during the study period are compared as follows: AveN Group 1= Average number of FU visits per 2 years in the HM group AveN Control= Average number of FU visits per 2 years in the control group	2 years
Secondary	Efficacy of Home Monitoring:Average Cost for In-office Follow-up Per Patient-year	The sum of insured medical expenses for regular and additional outpatient FUs will be compared between HM group and Control group. It shall include Fees of FU consultation, cardiac IPG instruction, and other diagnostic test , but treatment fees including medication. Hospitalization are not included.; This analysis is performed on the same ITT population as the analysis set of the first secondary endpoint. To compensate for possible asymmetric drop-out, the comparison will not be cost per patient, but costs per patient-year.; Study costs per patient will be calculated by summing up all relevant variables in 3mFU Randomization CRF (points2-11) as well as in InOffice FU CRF and in Additional InOffice FU CRF. Total costs per patient result by multiplying the sum of all points by 10. Unit measurement is Yen.; H : The average costs in HM group are not less than that in Control group. AveCostsHM = AveCostsControl Ha: The average costs in HM group are less than that in Control group.	2 years