Actions Elicited by In-hospital Follow-up of Cardiac Devices

NCT ID: NCT01073449

Last Updated: 2011-02-28

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

Total Enrollment

3362 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2010-02-28

Study Completion Date

2011-01-31

Brief Summary

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

This study will enroll all patients who will attend an in-hospital follow-up of cardiac device since February 22nd 2010 to June 21st 2010.

Primary objective of the study is to observe how many of patients seen during these period (approximately 5000) will receive a change in cardiac device programming or in drug therapy or a scheduled or urgent hospital admission.

These data should help to clarify how useful and safe is a remote monitoring strategy for this kind of patients.

Detailed Description

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

Number of Pacemakers (PM) and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICD) is rapidly growing due to enlarged indications. This fact causes an exponential increase in scheduled in-hospital follow-ups. For this reason, all the companies that produce PM and ICD have released systems that allow remote monitoring and follow-up of cardiac devices (both PM and ICD) and U.S. guidelines have already been changed, in order to suggest remote follow-up of these devices at appropriated intervals.

Nevertheless, informations on actions taken during scheduled in-hospital follow-up are incomplete.

ATHENS study has been designed to answer to 3 questions:

1. How often, during a scheduled in hospital follow-up physicians "change" something ? (device programming; drug therapy; scheduled device replacement ...)
2. The "rate of change" is different is the follow-up is required pby the general practitioner who normally takes care of the patients or by the patient itself?
3. Change are more frequent during PM or during ICD follow-up or during cardiac resynchronization therapy devices?

Conditions

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

Cardiac Pacemaker, Artificial Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator

Keywords

Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.

Cardiac devices In-Hospital Follow-up Analytical

Study Design

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

Observational Model Type

COHORT

Study Time Perspective

PROSPECTIVE

Study Groups

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

Cardiac device

All patients implanted with a cardiac device, pacemaker(PM)or Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD)

In-hospital follow-up of cardiac device

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Electrical measures taken during normal follow-up and clinical status of the patient

Interventions

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

In-hospital follow-up of cardiac device

Electrical measures taken during normal follow-up and clinical status of the patient

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

* All patients with a cardiac device

Exclusion Criteria

* Follow-up of a cardiac device at discharge from hospital after first implant
Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

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

Cliniche Humanitas Gavazzeni

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

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

Dr. Giosuè Mascioli

Principal Investigators

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

Giosue Mascioli, MD

Role: STUDY_CHAIR

Cliniche Humanitas Gavazzeni

Antonio Curnis, MD

Role: STUDY_CHAIR

Spedali Civili di Brescia

Maurizio Landolina, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Policlinico San Matteo Pavia

Gian-Paolo Gelmini, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Ospedale Civile di Desenzano d/Garda

Franco Ruffa, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Ospedale A. Manzoni - Lecco

Locations

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

U.O. Aritmologia - Cliniche Humanitas Gavazzeni

Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy

Site Status

Laboratorio di Elettrofisiologia - Spedali Civili

Brescia, Brescia, Italy

Site Status

Laboratorio di Elettrofisiologia

Desenzano del Garda, Brescia, Italy

Site Status

Laboratorio di Cardiologia - Ospedale Civile

Casalmaggiore, Cremona, Italy

Site Status

Laboratorio di Elettrofisiologia - Ospedale A. Manzoni

Lecco, Lecco, Italy

Site Status

Laboratorio di Elettrofisiologia

Merate, Lecco, Italy

Site Status

Laboratorio di Elettrofisiologia - Ospedale Carlo Poma

Mantova, Mantova, Italy

Site Status

Laboratorio di Elettrofisiologia - Ospedale San Matteo

Pavia, Pavia, Italy

Site Status

Countries

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

Italy

References

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

Senges-Becker JC, Klostermann M, Becker R, Bauer A, Siegler KE, Katus HA, Schoels W. What is the "optimal" follow-up schedule for ICD patients? Europace. 2005 Jul;7(4):319-26. doi: 10.1016/j.eupc.2005.02.117.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 15944090 (View on PubMed)

Fauchier L, Sadoul N, Kouakam C, Briand F, Chauvin M, Babuty D, Clementy J. Potential cost savings by telemedicine-assisted long-term care of implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2005 Jan;28 Suppl 1:S255-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2005.00071.x.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 15683509 (View on PubMed)

Brugada P. What evidence do we have to replace in-hospital implantable cardioverter defibrillator follow-up? Clin Res Cardiol. 2006;95 Suppl 3:III3-9. doi: 10.1007/s00392-006-1302-x.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 16598602 (View on PubMed)

Mascioli G, Curnis A, Landolina M, Klersy C, Gelmini GP, Ruffa F; ATHENS Investigators. Actions elicited during scheduled and unscheduled in-hospital follow-up of cardiac devices: results of the ATHENS multicentre registry. Europace. 2011 Dec;13(12):1766-73. doi: 10.1093/europace/eur233. Epub 2011 Jul 14.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 21764815 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

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

GAVBS1

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id