Biventricular Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Heart Failure Patients With Atrioventricular Block (BLOCK HF)

NCT ID: NCT00267098

Last Updated: 2014-03-26

Study Results

Results available

Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.

View full results

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

918 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2003-12-31

Study Completion Date

2013-03-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Heart failure is a progressive disease that decreases the pumping action of the heart. This may cause a backup of fluid in the heart and may result in heart beat changes. When there are changes in the heartbeat, sometimes a pacemaker is used to control the rate and rhythm of the heartbeat. In this trial, the researchers will test if pacing both the left and right lower half of the heart (ventricles) will:

* decrease the number of hospital and clinic visits due to heart failure symptoms
* extend life
* delay heart failure symptoms as compared to those who are paced in only one ventricle (the right ventricle)

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Atrioventricular Block Heart Diseases

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

DOUBLE

Participants Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Biventricular pacing

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT)

Intervention Type DEVICE

Biventricular pacing

Right ventricular pacing

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT)

Intervention Type DEVICE

Right ventricular pacing

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT)

Biventricular pacing

Intervention Type DEVICE

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT)

Right ventricular pacing

Intervention Type DEVICE

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

Medtronic CRT-P Medtronic CRT-D Medtronic CRT-P Medtronic CRT-D

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Subject has standard class I or class IIa indication for pacemaker implantation in accordance with ACC/AHA/HRS guidelines
* Subjects diagnosed with atrioventricular (AV) block. An AV block is a disturbance when the heart's natural pacemaker sends a message from the atrium (top part of heart) to the ventricle (bottom part of heart) and the message is partially or totally blocked
* Subject is receiving first time implant
* Subjects with heart failure but no symptoms of it (New York Heart Association \[NYHA\] Class I), or subjects with mild heart failure that only sometimes interferes with their daily activities (NYHA Class II), or subjects with heart failure that severely limits daily activities (NYHA Class III)
* Subjects with documented reduced heart pumping function (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 50%) within past 90 days
* Subject is at least 18 years old
* Subject or authorized legal guardian or representative has signed and dated the Informed Consent
* Subject is able to receive a pectoral implant
* Subject is expected to remain available for follow-up visits at the study center
* Subject is willing and able to comply with the protocol

Exclusion Criteria

* Subject has ever had a previous or has an existing device implant
* Subjects with some forms of chest pain or myocardial infarction (heart attack) within the past 30 days
* Subjects with coronary bypass within the past 30 days
* Subjects with stent within the past 30 days
* Subjects with valve repair or replacement within the past 6 months or is indicated for repair or replacement
* Subjects with a mechanical right heart valve
* Subject is indicated for a biventricular pacing device (CRT-P or CRT-D devices)
* Subject is enrolled in a concurrent study which may confound the results of this study (co-enrollment in any concurrent clinical study requires approval of the study manager)
* Subject is pregnant, or of child bearing potential and not on a reliable form of birth control
* Subjects with a previous heart transplant
* Subjects has been classified as NHYA Functional Class IV within prior 90 days (subjects with severe heart failure and should always be resting)
* Subject, legal guardian or authorized representative is unable or unwilling to cooperate or give written informed consent
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Medtronic Cardiac Rhythm and Heart Failure

INDUSTRY

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Anne B. Curtis, MD, FHRS, FACC

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

University at Buffalo, NY

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Anchorage, Alaska, United States

Site Status

Peoria, Arizona, United States

Site Status

Little Rock, Arkansas, United States

Site Status

Glendale, California, United States

Site Status

Long Beach, California, United States

Site Status

Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States

Site Status

Hollywood, Florida, United States

Site Status

Jacksonville, Florida, United States

Site Status

Pensacola, Florida, United States

Site Status

Tampa, Florida, United States

Site Status

Park Ridge, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Rockford, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Davenport, Iowa, United States

Site Status

Lexington, Kentucky, United States

Site Status

Lacombe, Louisiana, United States

Site Status

Boston, Massachusetts, United States

Site Status

Grand Rapids, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Petoskey, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Ypsilanti, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States

Site Status

Saint Louis Park, Minnesota, United States

Site Status

Kansas City, Missouri, United States

Site Status

St Louis, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Lincoln, Nebraska, United States

Site Status

Camden, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

Hackensack, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

Ridgewood, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

Bay Shore, New York, United States

Site Status

Rochester, New York, United States

Site Status

Syracuse, New York, United States

Site Status

West Islip, New York, United States

Site Status

Cincinnati, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Cleveland, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States

Site Status

Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States

Site Status

Danville, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Doylestown, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Ephrata, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Lancaster, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Wyomissing, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Providence, Rhode Island, United States

Site Status

Kingsport, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

Dallas, Texas, United States

Site Status

Fort Worth, Texas, United States

Site Status

Fairfax, Virginia, United States

Site Status

Norfolk, Virginia, United States

Site Status

Spokane, Washington, United States

Site Status

Morgantown, West Virginia, United States

Site Status

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States

Site Status

Kitchener, Ontario, Canada

Site Status

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Site Status

Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States Canada

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Fudim M, Dalgaard F, Friedman DJ, Abraham WT, Cleland JGF, Curtis AB, Gold MR, Kutyifa V, Linde C, Ali-Ahmed F, Tang A, Olivas-Martinez A, Inoue LYT, Al-Khatib SM, Sanders GD. Comorbidities and clinical response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: Patient-level meta-analysis from eight clinical trials. Eur J Heart Fail. 2024 Apr;26(4):1039-1046. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.3029. Epub 2023 Sep 15.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 37671601 (View on PubMed)

Friedman DJ, Al-Khatib SM, Dalgaard F, Fudim M, Abraham WT, Cleland JGF, Curtis AB, Gold MR, Kutyifa V, Linde C, Tang AS, Ali-Ahmed F, Olivas-Martinez A, Inoue LYT, Sanders GD. Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Improves Outcomes in Patients With Intraventricular Conduction Delay But Not Right Bundle Branch Block: A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Circulation. 2023 Mar 7;147(10):812-823. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.062124. Epub 2023 Jan 26.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 36700426 (View on PubMed)

Curtis AB, Worley SJ, Chung ES, Li P, Christman SA, St John Sutton M. Improvement in Clinical Outcomes With Biventricular Versus Right Ventricular Pacing: The BLOCK HF Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 May 10;67(18):2148-2157. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.02.051.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 27151347 (View on PubMed)

St John Sutton M, Plappert T, Adamson PB, Li P, Christman SA, Chung ES, Curtis AB. Left Ventricular Reverse Remodeling With Biventricular Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients With Atrioventricular Block and Heart Failure in the BLOCK HF Trial. Circ Heart Fail. 2015 May;8(3):510-8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.114.001626. Epub 2015 Feb 19.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 25697851 (View on PubMed)

Curtis AB, Worley SJ, Adamson PB, Chung ES, Niazi I, Sherfesee L, Shinn T, Sutton MS; Biventricular versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Heart Failure Patients with Atrioventricular Block (BLOCK HF) Trial Investigators. Biventricular pacing for atrioventricular block and systolic dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2013 Apr 25;368(17):1585-93. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1210356.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 23614585 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

215

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Pacing in Heart Failure With Preserved LVEF
NCT03215849 ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION NA