Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 3:44 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2026-02-12 @ 8:07 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT06342492
Status:
RECRUITING
Last Update Posted:
2024-10-28
First Post:
2024-02-06
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Conduction System Vs Surgical Left Ventricular Epicardial Pacing For Coronary Sinus Lead Failure
Sponsor:
Kansas City Heart Rhythm Research Foundation
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Conduction System Vs Surgical Left Ventricular Epicardial Pacing For Coronary Sinus Lead Failure
Status:
RECRUITING
Status Verified Date:
2024-10
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
This a single-center, retrospective, observational study of patients that undergo coronary sinus(CS) lead revision, comparing epicardial lead placement to coronary sinus pacing(CSP) in those that had lead failure.
Detailed Description:
Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator(CRT-D) improves quality of life, functionality, and even mortality for select patients with severe heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). It traditionally consists of three leads placed endovascularly into the right atrium, right ventricle, and left ventricle (LV) \[typically placed into the CS\], known as biventricular pacing resynchronization (BVP-CRT), respectively, from which electrical stimulation enables improved cardiac synchrony. Nonetheless, the placement of a CRT-D is not without risks. Lead-related complication is high and CRT-D implantation fails in up to 30% of patients due to lead placement alone.
Epicardial lead placement and CSP have been deemed viable alternatives to CRT-D. It has even been shown to be options in patients that fail conventional BVP-CRT. This is primarily due to increased accuracy, decreased complications, and even durability. However, guidelines for decision between a transthoracic approach and CSP is unclear, even more so after lead failure. Instead, this decision is currently individualized to the patient. There is a lack of prospective and head-to-head data between the two, and this study is aimed to compare transthoracic LV epicardial lead placement and CSP in patients with lead failure after BVP-CRT.
Epicardial lead placement and CSP have been deemed viable alternatives to CRT-D. It has even been shown to be options in patients that fail conventional BVP-CRT. This is primarily due to increased accuracy, decreased complications, and even durability. However, guidelines for decision between a transthoracic approach and CSP is unclear, even more so after lead failure. Instead, this decision is currently individualized to the patient. There is a lack of prospective and head-to-head data between the two, and this study is aimed to compare transthoracic LV epicardial lead placement and CSP in patients with lead failure after BVP-CRT.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: