CONNECT Study - Clinical Evaluation Of Remote NotificatioN to rEduCe Time to Clinical Decision

NCT ID: NCT00402246

Last Updated: 2011-02-25

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

2009 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2006-11-30

Study Completion Date

2009-09-30

Brief Summary

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

The purpose of this study is to determine whether the ability of clinicians to receive and review information from patients implanted with a heart device over the internet (remote care) is comparable to patients who are seen in-office for routine visits to check the status of their device.

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.

Arrhythmia Tachycardia Atrial Fibrillation Ventricular Fibrillation

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

DIAGNOSTIC

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

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

Remote Arm

Remote Management

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Remote Management

Intervention Type OTHER

The Remote Management method of treating patients consists of 3 components:

CareAlerts: Device alerts that are triggered by either device integrity issues or arrhythmic issues with the patient (e.g. multiple shocks delivered for a ventricular arrhythmia, more than 12 hours of atrial arrhythmias occurring in a day)

Conexus: the device feature which allows the device to wirelessly transmit information (possibly triggered by a CareAlert) to a patient monitor that is hooked up a patient's phone line

CareLink: the Medtronic system which allows device data to be transmitted from a patient's monitor through the phone line to ultimately be displayed on a secure website for viewing by the patient's physician.

The combination of these 3 components allow the patient's device to transmit information relating to either a device issue or patient issue to be viewed by a clinician without the patient having to take direct action.

In-office Arm

In-Office Care

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

In-Office Care

Intervention Type OTHER

Routine in-office care

Interventions

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

Remote Management

The Remote Management method of treating patients consists of 3 components:

CareAlerts: Device alerts that are triggered by either device integrity issues or arrhythmic issues with the patient (e.g. multiple shocks delivered for a ventricular arrhythmia, more than 12 hours of atrial arrhythmias occurring in a day)

Conexus: the device feature which allows the device to wirelessly transmit information (possibly triggered by a CareAlert) to a patient monitor that is hooked up a patient's phone line

CareLink: the Medtronic system which allows device data to be transmitted from a patient's monitor through the phone line to ultimately be displayed on a secure website for viewing by the patient's physician.

The combination of these 3 components allow the patient's device to transmit information relating to either a device issue or patient issue to be viewed by a clinician without the patient having to take direct action.

Intervention Type OTHER

In-Office Care

Routine in-office care

Intervention Type OTHER

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

* Patient will be implanted with a Medtronic Conexus-enabled Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Defibrillator (CRT-D) or Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (DR-ICD) device.

Exclusion Criteria

* Patient has permanent rapid beats in the upper chamber of the heart (Atrial Fibrillation) - (constant atrial fibrillation in which pharmacological therapy or cardioversion failed or not attempted).
* Patient plans to be on chronic warfarin therapy post-implant and is no longer receiving therapies to attempt to control the rhythm of the beats in their atrium.
* Patient has a previous ICD, CRT-D, Implantable Pulse Generator (IPG) or Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Pacemaker (CRT-P).
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.

Symbios Clinical

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

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.

Medtronic, Inc.

Principal Investigators

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

George Crossley, M.D.

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Mid-State Cardiology

Locations

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

Mobile, Alabama, United States

Site Status

Mesa, Arizona, United States

Site Status

Scottsdale, Arizona, United States

Site Status

Tucson, Arizona, United States

Site Status

Fort Smith, Arkansas, United States

Site Status

Little Rock, Arkansas, United States

Site Status

East Palo Alto, California, United States

Site Status

Inglewood, California, United States

Site Status

Los Angeles, California, United States

Site Status

Napa, California, United States

Site Status

Rancho Mirage, California, United States

Site Status

San Bernardino, California, United States

Site Status

San Diego, California, United States

Site Status

Santa Rosa, California, United States

Site Status

Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States

Site Status

Bridgeport, Connecticut, United States

Site Status

Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States

Site Status

Brooksville, Florida, United States

Site Status

Clearwater, Florida, United States

Site Status

Daytona Beach, Florida, United States

Site Status

Hollywood, Florida, United States

Site Status

Jacksonville, Florida, United States

Site Status

Lakeland, Florida, United States

Site Status

Orlando, Florida, United States

Site Status

Pensacola, Florida, United States

Site Status

Safety Harbor, Florida, United States

Site Status

Sarasota, Florida, United States

Site Status

St. Petersburg, Florida, United States

Site Status

Tampa, Florida, United States

Site Status

Vero Beach, Florida, United States

Site Status

Atlanta, Georgia, United States

Site Status

Gainesville, Georgia, United States

Site Status

Aurora, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Chicago, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Kankakee, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Moline, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Rockford, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Springfield, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Bloomington, Indiana, United States

Site Status

Evansville, Indiana, United States

Site Status

Indianapolis, Indiana, United States

Site Status

Ames, Iowa, United States

Site Status

Kansas City, Kansas, United States

Site Status

Overland Park, Kansas, United States

Site Status

Ashland, Kentucky, United States

Site Status

Louisville, Kentucky, United States

Site Status

Owensboro, Kentucky, United States

Site Status

Covington, Louisiana, United States

Site Status

Baltimore, Maryland, United States

Site Status

Glen Burnie, Maryland, United States

Site Status

Lanham, Maryland, United States

Site Status

Randallstown, Maryland, United States

Site Status

Salisbury, Maryland, United States

Site Status

Takoma Park, Maryland, United States

Site Status

Boston, Massachusetts, United States

Site Status

Chelmsford, Massachusetts, United States

Site Status

Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Grand Blanc, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Petoskey, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Saginaw, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Saint Joseph, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Ypsilanti, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States

Site Status

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, United States

Site Status

Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States

Site Status

Hattiesburg, Mississippi, United States

Site Status

Columbia, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Mexico, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Springfield, Missouri, United States

Site Status

St Louis, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Kearney, Nebraska, United States

Site Status

Omaha, Nebraska, United States

Site Status

Manchester, New Hampshire, United States

Site Status

Cherry Hill, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

Newark, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

Ridgewood, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

Wayne, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

West Orange, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

Flushing, New York, United States

Site Status

Mineola, New York, United States

Site Status

New York, New York, United States

Site Status

Poughkeepsie, New York, United States

Site Status

Rochester, New York, United States

Site Status

Williamsville, New York, United States

Site Status

Gastonia, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Raleigh, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Bismarck, North Dakota, United States

Site Status

Cincinnati, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Cleveland, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Dayton, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Fairview Park, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Kettering, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Mayfield Heights, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Whitehall, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States

Site Status

Eugene, Oregon, United States

Site Status

Portland, Oregon, United States

Site Status

Abington, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Doylestown, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Erie, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Lancaster, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Langhorne, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Wormleysburg, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Wyomissing, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

York, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Columbia, South Carolina, United States

Site Status

Florence, South Carolina, United States

Site Status

Greenwood, South Carolina, United States

Site Status

Chattanooga, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

Germantown, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

Knoxville, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

Nashville, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

Amarillo, Texas, United States

Site Status

Corpus Christi, Texas, United States

Site Status

Dallas, Texas, United States

Site Status

Houston, Texas, United States

Site Status

San Antonio, Texas, United States

Site Status

The Woodlands, Texas, United States

Site Status

Fairfax, Virginia, United States

Site Status

Fredericksburg, Virginia, United States

Site Status

Lynchburg, Virginia, United States

Site Status

Portsmouth, Virginia, United States

Site Status

Morgantown, West Virginia, United States

Site Status

Madison, Wisconsin, United States

Site Status

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States

Site Status

Countries

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

United States

References

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

Crossley GH, Boyle A, Vitense H, Chang Y, Mead RH; CONNECT Investigators. The CONNECT (Clinical Evaluation of Remote Notification to Reduce Time to Clinical Decision) trial: the value of wireless remote monitoring with automatic clinician alerts. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Mar 8;57(10):1181-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.12.012. Epub 2011 Jan 20.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 21255955 (View on PubMed)

Crossley G, Boyle A, Vitense H, Sherfesee L, Mead RH. Trial design of the clinical evaluation of remote notification to reduce time to clinical decision: the Clinical evaluation Of remote NotificatioN to rEduCe Time to clinical decision (CONNECT) study. Am Heart J. 2008 Nov;156(5):840-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2008.06.028. Epub 2008 Sep 11.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 19061696 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

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

605

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

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

Remote Patient Management of CIEDs
NCT03405740 RECRUITING NA
Same Day Discharge
NCT02943512 UNKNOWN NA