Protect II, A Prospective, Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

NCT ID: NCT00562016

Last Updated: 2011-03-21

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

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

Recruitment Status

TERMINATED

Clinical Phase

PHASE3

Total Enrollment

452 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2007-10-31

Study Completion Date

2011-09-30

Brief Summary

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

The IMPELLA® 2.5 System will be superior to Intra Aortic Balloon Pump in preventing the composite rate of major adverse events during and after the PCI procedure.

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.

Coronary Artery Disease

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.

IMPELLA LP 2.5

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

IMPLELLA LP 2.5

Intervention Type DEVICE

Insertion of the LP 2.5 IMPELLA circulatory support system that can be placed across the aortic valve using a single femoral site. The device pumps blood from the left ventricle into the ascending aorta at 2.5 L/min.

IABP Intra-aortic balloon pump

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

IABP Intra-aortic balloon pump

Intervention Type DEVICE

IABP uses counterpulsation to provide 0.2L/min coronary flow

Interventions

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

IMPLELLA LP 2.5

Insertion of the LP 2.5 IMPELLA circulatory support system that can be placed across the aortic valve using a single femoral site. The device pumps blood from the left ventricle into the ascending aorta at 2.5 L/min.

Intervention Type DEVICE

IABP Intra-aortic balloon pump

IABP uses counterpulsation to provide 0.2L/min coronary flow

Intervention Type DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

* Informed consent
* Subject is indicated for a NON emergent percutaneous treatment of at least on de novo or restenotic lesion in a native coronary vessel or bypass graft.
* Patient presents with:

* A compromised Ejection Fraction
* Intervention on the last patent coronary conduit
* Intervention on an unprotected left main artery or
* Patient presenting with triple vessel disease.

Exclusion Criteria

* ST elevation M.I.
* Pre procedure cardiac arrest within 24 hours.
* Subject in cardiogenic shock
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

90 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

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

Abiomed Inc.

INDUSTRY

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

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

Abiomed Inc

Principal Investigators

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

William O'Neill

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Not affilicated with Abiomed

Locations

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

University of Alabama

Birmingham, Alabama, United States

Site Status

Mercy Gilbert Medical Center

Gilbert, Arizona, United States

Site Status

Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center

Phoenix, Arizona, United States

Site Status

California Cardiovascular/Washington Hospital

Fremont, California, United States

Site Status

Foundation for Cardiovascular Medicine

La Jolla, California, United States

Site Status

University of Southern California

Los Angeles, California, United States

Site Status

University of Miami

Miami, Florida, United States

Site Status

Munroe Regional Medical Center

Ocala, Florida, United States

Site Status

Emory Crawford Long Hospital

Atlanta, Georgia, United States

Site Status

Medical College Of Georgia

Augusta, Georgia, United States

Site Status

University of Chicago Medical Center

Chicago, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Loyola University Medical Center

Maywood, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Washington Adventist Hospital

Takoma Park, Maryland, United States

Site Status

Massach General Hospital

Boston, Massachusetts, United States

Site Status

Brigham & Womens

Boston, Massachusetts, United States

Site Status

St. Elizabeths Medical Center

Boston, Massachusetts, United States

Site Status

Oakwood Hospital Wayne State University

Dearborn, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Henry Ford Medical

Detroit, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Harper Hospital

Detroit, Michigan, United States

Site Status

St. John Hospital and Medical Center

Detroit, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Northern Michigan

Petoskey, Michigan, United States

Site Status

William Beaumont

Royal Oak, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Providence Hospital and Medical Centers

Southfield, Michigan, United States

Site Status

St. Louis University

St Louis, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Bryan LGH Heart Institute

Lincoln, Nebraska, United States

Site Status

Morristown Memorial

Morristown, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

Mt. Sinai School of Medicine

New York, New York, United States

Site Status

Columbia Presbyterian Hospital

New York, New York, United States

Site Status

Strong Memorial Hospital

Rochester, New York, United States

Site Status

Carolinas Medical Center

Charlotte, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Duke University Medical Center

Durham, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Cardiovascular Research of Forsythe Medical

Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

University of Cincinnati

Cincinnati, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Riverside Methodist

Columbus, Ohio, United States

Site Status

UPMC Presbyterian Hospital

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Robert Packer Hospital

Sayre, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Pinnacle Health

Wormleysburg, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

York Hospital

York, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Veteran's Affairs Medical Center Dallas

Dallas, Texas, United States

Site Status

Methodist Hospital

Houston, Texas, United States

Site Status

University of Texas Medical School at Houston

Houston, Texas, United States

Site Status

Intermountain Medical Center

Murray, Utah, United States

Site Status

St. Joseph's Hospital

Bellingham, Washington, United States

Site Status

University of Washington

Seattle, Washington, United States

Site Status

Royal Alexandra Hospital

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Site Status

University of Alberta Hospital

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Site Status

Ottawa Heart Institute

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Site Status

Toronto General Hospital

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Site Status

Royal Victoria Hospital at McGill

Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Site Status

Academic Medical Center

Amsterdam, Netherlands, Netherlands

Site Status

Countries

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

United States Canada Netherlands

References

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

Cohen MG, Matthews R, Maini B, Dixon S, Vetrovec G, Wohns D, Palacios I, Popma J, Ohman EM, Schreiber T, O'Neill WW. Percutaneous left ventricular assist device for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions: Real-world versus clinical trial experience. Am Heart J. 2015 Nov;170(5):872-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2015.08.009. Epub 2015 Aug 15.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 26542494 (View on PubMed)

Daubert MA, Massaro J, Liao L, Pershad A, Mulukutla S, Magnus Ohman E, Popma J, O'Neill WW, Douglas PS. High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with reverse left ventricular remodeling and improved outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease and reduced ejection fraction. Am Heart J. 2015 Sep;170(3):550-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2015.06.013. Epub 2015 Jun 26.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 26385039 (View on PubMed)

Kovacic JC, Kini A, Banerjee S, Dangas G, Massaro J, Mehran R, Popma J, O'Neill WW, Sharma SK. Patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease and impaired ventricular function undergoing PCI with Impella 2.5 hemodynamic support have improved 90-day outcomes compared to intra-aortic balloon pump: a sub-study of the PROTECT II trial. J Interv Cardiol. 2015 Feb;28(1):32-40. doi: 10.1111/joic.12166.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 25689546 (View on PubMed)

Henriques JP, Ouweneel DM, Naidu SS, Palacios IF, Popma J, Ohman EM, O'Neill WW. Evaluating the learning curve in the prospective Randomized Clinical Trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: a prespecified subanalysis of the PROTECT II study. Am Heart J. 2014 Apr;167(4):472-479.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.12.018. Epub 2014 Jan 3.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 24655695 (View on PubMed)

Dangas GD, Kini AS, Sharma SK, Henriques JP, Claessen BE, Dixon SR, Massaro JM, Palacios I, Popma JJ, Ohman M, Stone GW, O'Neill WW. Impact of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump on prognostically important clinical outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (from the PROTECT II randomized trial). Am J Cardiol. 2014 Jan 15;113(2):222-8. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.09.008.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 24527505 (View on PubMed)

O'Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, Henriques JP, Dixon S, Massaro J, Palacios I, Maini B, Mulukutla S, Dzavik V, Popma J, Douglas PS, Ohman M. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study. Circulation. 2012 Oct 2;126(14):1717-27. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.098194. Epub 2012 Aug 30.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 22935569 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

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

7182007

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

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

The PROTECT-EU Study
NCT05466552 RECRUITING
The Protrieve PROTECTOR Study
NCT06495996 COMPLETED NA
The PEERLESS Study
NCT05111613 COMPLETED NA
Adjust-Unlikely PE
NCT05708794 COMPLETED
The PERSEVERE Study
NCT06588634 RECRUITING NA