TRUST: Lumos-T Safely RedUceS RouTine Office Device Follow-up

NCT ID: NCT00336284

Last Updated: 2010-08-03

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

PHASE4

Total Enrollment

1450 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2005-11-30

Study Completion Date

2009-06-30

Brief Summary

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

This study is a multi-center, prospective and randomized trial. The primary objective of this study is to demonstrate that the use of the BIOTRONIK Home Monitoring system (HM) can safely reduce the number of regularly scheduled office follow-up visits, compared to the conventional method of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) follow-up.

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.

Patient Indicated for an ICD

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

NONE

Study Groups

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

Home Monitoring

Home Monitoring programmed on.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Home Monitoring

Intervention Type OTHER

Home Monitoring programmed on. In-office and Home Monitoring evaluation at 3 and 15 months post ICD implant. Home Monitoring evaluation only at 6, 9, and 12 months post ICD implant.

In-Office Conventional Follow-up

Home Monitoring programmed off.

Group Type OTHER

In-Office Conventional Follow-up

Intervention Type OTHER

Home Monitoring programmed off. In-office evaluations at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months post ICD implant.

Interventions

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

Home Monitoring

Home Monitoring programmed on. In-office and Home Monitoring evaluation at 3 and 15 months post ICD implant. Home Monitoring evaluation only at 6, 9, and 12 months post ICD implant.

Intervention Type OTHER

In-Office Conventional Follow-up

Home Monitoring programmed off. In-office evaluations at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months post ICD implant.

Intervention Type OTHER

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

* Implanted within the last 45 days or being considered for implant with a BIOTRONIK ICD with Home Monitoring (HM)/Intracardiac Electrogram (IEGM)-Online technology, or legally marketed future generation device with HM/IEGM Online.
* Able to utilize the HM system throughout the study
* Ability to give informed consent
* Geographically stable and able to return for regular follow-ups for fifteen (15) months
* At least 18 years old

* Pacemaker dependent
* Currently enrolled in any other cardiac clinical investigation
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.

Biotronik, Inc.

INDUSTRY

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

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

BIOTRONIK, Inc.

Principal Investigators

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

Niraj Varma, MD, FRCP

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

The Cleveland Clinic

Locations

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

Site 55

Birmingham, Alabama, United States

Site Status

Site 68

Mesa, Arizona, United States

Site Status

Site 99

Phoenix, Arizona, United States

Site Status

Site 118

Bakersfield, California, United States

Site Status

Site 91

Bakersfield, California, United States

Site Status

Site 95

Burbank, California, United States

Site Status

Site 72

Fairfield, California, United States

Site Status

Site 43

Fremont, California, United States

Site Status

Site 90

Fresno, California, United States

Site Status

Site 73

Fresno, California, United States

Site Status

Site 75

Fresno, California, United States

Site Status

Site 67

Glendale, California, United States

Site Status

Site 82

Jackson, California, United States

Site Status

Site 78

Mission Viejo, California, United States

Site Status

Site 15

Sherman Oaks, California, United States

Site Status

Site 89

Simi Valley, California, United States

Site Status

Site 88

Whittier, California, United States

Site Status

Site 37

Boulder, Colorado, United States

Site Status

Site 38

Boulder, Colorado, United States

Site Status

Site 98

Denver, Colorado, United States

Site Status

Site 122

Newark, Delaware, United States

Site Status

Site 100

Brooksville, Florida, United States

Site Status

Site 111

Jacksonville, Florida, United States

Site Status

Site 40

Lakeland, Florida, United States

Site Status

Site 36

Lauderdale Lakes, Florida, United States

Site Status

Site 34

Miami, Florida, United States

Site Status

Site 42

Oakland Park, Florida, United States

Site Status

Site 13

Port Charlotte, Florida, United States

Site Status

Site 41

Tamarac, Florida, United States

Site Status

Site 60

Vero Beach, Florida, United States

Site Status

Site 6

Canton, Georgia, United States

Site Status

Site 106

Douglas, Georgia, United States

Site Status

Site 61

Lawrenceville, Georgia, United States

Site Status

Site 10

Marietta, Georgia, United States

Site Status

Site 66

Marietta, Georgia, United States

Site Status

Site 21

Chicago, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Site 124

Chicago, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Site 39

Oak Lawn, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Site 3

Louisville, Kentucky, United States

Site Status

Site 11

Owensboro, Kentucky, United States

Site Status

Site 51

Covington, Louisiana, United States

Site Status

Site 79

Hammond, Louisiana, United States

Site Status

Site 85

Lacombe, Louisiana, United States

Site Status

Site 102

Lafayette, Louisiana, United States

Site Status

Site 2

Lake Charles, Louisiana, United States

Site Status

Site 53

New Orleans, Louisiana, United States

Site Status

Site 17

Annapolis, Maryland, United States

Site Status

Site 25

Lanham, Maryland, United States

Site Status

Site 17

Riverdale, Maryland, United States

Site Status

Site 18

Rockville, Maryland, United States

Site Status

Site 29

Boston, Massachusetts, United States

Site Status

Site 94

Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Site 103

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Site 4

Lansing, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Site 12

Lapeer, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Site 22

Saginaw, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Site 14

Corinth, Mississippi, United States

Site Status

Site 52

Gulfport, Mississippi, United States

Site Status

Site 49

Bridgeton, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Site 105

Festus, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Site 121

Festus, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Site 45

Moberly, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Site 56

Osage Beach, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Site 108

St Louis, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Site 114

St Louis, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Site 48

St Louis, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Site 113

St Louis, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Site 74

St Louis, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Site 47

University City, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Site 117

Brick, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

Site 120

East Brunswick, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

Site 107

East Orange, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

Site 119

Elizabeth, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

Site 116

Oakhurst, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

Site 71

Wayne, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

Site 97

Las Cruces, New Mexico, United States

Site Status

Site 112

Batavia, New York, United States

Site Status

Site 19

Brooklyn, New York, United States

Site Status

Site 27

Brooklyn, New York, United States

Site Status

Site 26

Brooklyn, New York, United States

Site Status

Site 77

Brooklyn, New York, United States

Site Status

Site 9

Johnson City, New York, United States

Site Status

Site 35

New York, New York, United States

Site Status

Site 76

New York, New York, United States

Site Status

Site 115

Pinehurst, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Site 57

Cleveland, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Site 16

Columbus, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Site 50

Columbus, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Site 84

Fairview Park, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Site 93

Massillon, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Site 30

Middletown, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Site 87

Middletown, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Site 96

Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States

Site Status

Site 63

Chinchilla, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Site 62

Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Site 32

Upland, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Site 23

Columbia, South Carolina, United States

Site Status

Site 20

Florence, South Carolina, United States

Site Status

Site 109

Lancaster, South Carolina, United States

Site Status

Site 5

Rock Hill, South Carolina, United States

Site Status

Site 59

Knoxville, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

Site 8

Knoxville, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

Site 110

Tullahoma, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

Site 1

Amarillo, Texas, United States

Site Status

Site 81

Brownsville, Texas, United States

Site Status

Site 33

Odessa, Texas, United States

Site Status

Site 80

San Antonio, Texas, United States

Site Status

Site 7

Yakima, Washington, United States

Site Status

Site 104

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Site Status

Site 92

Fleurimont, 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.

Varma N, Epstein AE, Irimpen A, Schweikert R, Love C; TRUST Investigators. Efficacy and safety of automatic remote monitoring for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator follow-up: the Lumos-T Safely Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-up (TRUST) trial. Circulation. 2010 Jul 27;122(4):325-32. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.937409. Epub 2010 Jul 12.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 20625110 (View on PubMed)

Chew DS, Piccini JP, Au F, Frazier-Mills CG, Michalski J, Varma N; TRUST Investigators. Alert-driven vs scheduled remote monitoring of implantable cardiac defibrillators: A cost-consequence analysis from the TRUST trial. Heart Rhythm. 2023 Mar;20(3):440-447. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2022.12.003. Epub 2022 Dec 8.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 36503177 (View on PubMed)

Varma N, Love CJ, Michalski J, Epstein AE; TRUST Investigators. Alert-Based ICD Follow-Up: A Model of Digitally Driven Remote Patient Monitoring. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021 Aug;7(8):976-987. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2021.01.008. Epub 2021 Feb 24.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 33640345 (View on PubMed)

Varma N, Love CJ, Schweikert R, Moll P, Michalski J, Epstein AE; TRUST Investigators. Automatic remote monitoring utilizing daily transmissions: transmission reliability and implantable cardioverter defibrillator battery longevity in the TRUST trial. Europace. 2018 Apr 1;20(4):622-628. doi: 10.1093/europace/eux059.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 29016878 (View on PubMed)

Varma N, Epstein AE, Schweikert R, Michalski J, Love CJ; TRUST Investigators. Role of Automatic Wireless Remote Monitoring Immediately Following ICD Implant: The Lumos-T Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-Up Study (TRUST) Trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016 Mar;27(3):321-6. doi: 10.1111/jce.12895. Epub 2016 Jan 27.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 26661687 (View on PubMed)

Varma N, Michalski J, Stambler B, Pavri BB; TRUST Investigators. Superiority of automatic remote monitoring compared with in-person evaluation for scheduled ICD follow-up in the TRUST trial - testing execution of the recommendations. Eur Heart J. 2014 May 21;35(20):1345-52. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu066. Epub 2014 Mar 3.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 24595864 (View on PubMed)

Varma N, Pavri BB, Stambler B, Michalski J; TRUST Investigators. Same-day discovery of implantable cardioverter defibrillator dysfunction in the TRUST remote monitoring trial: influence of contrasting messaging systems. Europace. 2013 May;15(5):697-703. doi: 10.1093/europace/eus410. Epub 2012 Dec 19.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 23258817 (View on PubMed)

Varma N, Michalski J, Epstein AE, Schweikert R. Automatic remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead and generator performance: the Lumos-T Safely RedUceS RouTine Office Device Follow-Up (TRUST) trial. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010 Oct;3(5):428-36. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.110.951962. Epub 2010 Aug 17.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 20716717 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

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

20052069

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

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

ProMRI 3T ENHANCED Master Study
NCT02506569 COMPLETED