Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 4:03 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-26 @ 2:58 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT01260402
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2022-02-25
First Post:
2010-12-08
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
False
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Randomized Comparison of Endocardial Versus Epicardial - From the Coronary Sinus - Left Ventricular Pacing for Resynchronization in Heart Failure.
Sponsor:
University Hospital, Bordeaux
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Randomized Comparison of Endocardial Versus Epicardial - From the Coronary Sinus - Left Ventricular Pacing for Resynchronization in Heart Failure.
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2022-02
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:
EPI-ENDO
Brief Summary:
Biventricular pacing is a validated treatment for patients suffering from heart failure resistant to medical treatment. However, up to 30% of the patients are non responsive to this strategy using the coronary sinus approach to pace the Left Ventricle (LV).
It has been demonstrated that the magnitude of the improvement was highly dependant on the LV pacing site. The coronary sinus approach rarely offers more than 1 or 2 potential pacing sites. Resynchronisation using a transeptal approach to pace the left ventricle on the cardiology has been shown feasible on small series. We therefore would like to compare these two approached in a randomised prospective study to confirm the hypotheses that endocardial LV pacing by offering multiple choices for the pacing sites reduces the number of non responders and is associated with greater hemodynamic benefit when compared to the conventional coronary sinus approach.
It has been demonstrated that the magnitude of the improvement was highly dependant on the LV pacing site. The coronary sinus approach rarely offers more than 1 or 2 potential pacing sites. Resynchronisation using a transeptal approach to pace the left ventricle on the cardiology has been shown feasible on small series. We therefore would like to compare these two approached in a randomised prospective study to confirm the hypotheses that endocardial LV pacing by offering multiple choices for the pacing sites reduces the number of non responders and is associated with greater hemodynamic benefit when compared to the conventional coronary sinus approach.
Detailed Description:
None
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
True
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: