AzTrials
AzTrials

Heart DiseasesPhase 3NCT00000619

Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness (ESCAPE)

A Phase 3 study testing catheterization, Swan-Ganz in people with Heart Diseases and Heart Failure, Congestive, run by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI).

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

To compare the efficacy of Pulmonary Artery Catheterization (PAC)-directed treatment strategy to a non-invasive treatment strategy on morbidity and mortality in patients with severe, class IV New York Heart Association (NYHA) congestive heart failure. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 16 to 100 years
What is being tested?
catheterization, Swan-Ganz
Type of treatment
Surgery or procedure
How many people
Not given
Where
No sites listed yet
Study dates
Apr 2001to Mar 2006
Phase
Phase 3
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 16 to 100 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Child, Adult, Older adult

Patients ages over 16, with class IV congestive heart failure (CHF). Patients had current hospitalization for CHF, one previous hospitalization for CHF within the past six months, left ventricular ejection fraction <35 percent for at least three months, and attempted therapy with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and digoxin and/or diuretics in the past. Patients had NYHA class IV with clinical evidence of elevated filling pressures at rest, that is, (a) evidence of elevated intracardiac filling pressures: orthopnea, abdominal discomfort attributed to hepato-splenic congestion, peripheral edema, ascites, rales, and jugular venous distension to 5 cm or less above sternal angle; and (b) inadequate peripheral perfusion, that is, cool extremities. Exclusions included patients with acute CHF requiring PAC as a part of the management and factors suggesting inability to comply with the protocol.

About this study

To compare the efficacy of Pulmonary Artery Catheterization (PAC)-directed treatment strategy to a non-invasive treatment strategy on morbidity and mortality in patients with severe, class IV New York Heart Association (NYHA) congestive heart failure. A secondary objective was to determine costs and resource utilization of PAC-directed treatment strategy compared to non-invasive treatment strategy.

Read the detailed description

BACKGROUND:

Congestive heart failure constitutes one of the major categories of morbidity, particularly in the elderly, and is responsible for the utilization of significant resources, including a large number of hospitalizations (estimated at 800,000 to 2.3 million per year) and related health care costs. In 1993, 4.7 million Americans carried the diagnosis of CHF, and about 400,000 new cases are diagnosed every year. It is estimated that there are 800,000 to 1.2 million CHF patients with NYHA class III-IV symptoms. The diagnosis and treatment of CHF and its episodes of decompensation can be facilitated by pulmonary artery catheter use, but its efficacy is highly dependent on the physician's experience in the treatment of such patients. Recently, concern has been raised about the benefits of PAC, also known as Swan-Ganz catheterization.

In response to concerns about the benefits and safety of PAC, the NHLBI and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) co-sponsored a workshop in August 1997 entitiled "Pulmonary Artery Catheterization and Clinical Outcomes (PACCO)". The purpose of the workshop was to provide an objective assessment of the state-of-the-science of PAC and its various uses. Experts in critical care, pulmonary medicine, cardiovascular medicine, surgery, pediatric cardiology, nursing, biostatistics, ethics, and medical economics identified several important clinical areas as priorities for clinical trials; persistent/refractory congestive heart failure (NYHA class IV) received top priority to test whether a PAC-directed treatment strategy achieves a better and less costly long-term outcome compared to a non-invasive treatment strategy. In addition to providing data on outcome, hospital utilization, and costs, the study would have additional benefits. For example, it would provide a clear benchmark for testing other technologies, now in developmental stages, that could supplant PAC in the future. Finally, the study would provide the basis for developing competency requirements for physicians, nurses, and others who insert and use pulmonary artery catheters, which was a strong recommendation of the PACCO Workshop.

DESIGN NARRATIVE:

Patients were randomized into two treatment arms: A total of 218 patients were assigned into a treatment strategy without PAC hemodynamic monitoring (Usual Group) and 215 patients into a treatment strategy guided by PAC (Hemodynamic Group). The primary endpoint was the combined endpoint of rehospitalization and death.

For all patients randomized, therapy was tailored to the ultimate goal of discharge on an oral medical regimen to provide better relief of CHF symptoms, to reduce filling pressures and to maintain adequate perfusion. These goals were the same for both groups, but in the Usual Group therapy was adjusted according to clinical assessment alone, while in the PAC-directed group, actual measurement of hemodynamics was used to supplement clinical assessment. The oral medical regimen for discharge was designed by the attending heart failure physician based on the standard available medications of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), nitrates, hydralazine, furosemide and other diuretic agents. Intravenous diuretics were used when major diuresis was desired with subsequent change to oral diuretics at least 48 hours before discharge. Physicians could also use low dose infusions of dopamine or dobutamine to facilitate diuresis. Intravenous nitroprusside could be used in either group.

In the Usual Group, therapy was tailored to the following goals: a) absence of evidence of elevated intracardiac filling pressures; relief of orthopnea; relief of abdominal discomfort attributed to hepatosplenchnic congestion; resolution of peripheral edema, ascites, and rales; reduction of jugular venous distension to 5 cm or less above sternal angle; and b) adequate peripheral perfusion; warm extremities, if they could be achieved, and pulse pressure 25 percent or more , or, if less, the greatest which could be achieved. Either during or after hemodynamic monitoring, therapy could be adjusted to achieve the clinical goals above and further adjusted, if necessary to maintain adequate blood pressure and renal function for all patients. Patients for whom therapy was adjusted without hemodynamic monitoring could crossover for hemodynamic monitoring at any time they reached certain criteria. The criteria for crossover included: need to add intravenous inotropic agents above 3 mcg/kg/minute to prevent symptomatic hypotension; repeated inability to discontinue low-dose inotropic agents; or renal insufficiency.

In the PAC-directed hemodynamic arm, therapy was adjusted to achieve specific hemodynamic goals in addition to the clinical goals in the Usual Group. These goals could include: pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) 15 mm Hg or less; right atrial pressure 8mm Hg or less unless PCWP is 15 mm Hg or less; maintenance of systolic blood pressure of 80 or above, except for occasional transient decreases to lower levels after oral medications.

Regardless of the goals by which therapy was adjusted in the hospital, the following conditions were met prior to discharge: 24 hours on oral medications alone without major medication change except for anticoagulation, and 48 hours after discontinuation of any intravenous inotropic medications; stable fluid balance; patient education; and home services and follow-up appointment.

Post-discharge management was the same for both groups, according to standard practice. Patients were followed for adjustment of CHF medications in their heart failure clinics at one to two weeks, four weeks, three months, and six months and more often if clinically indicated. There was a minimum of six months of follow-up.

Data collection included: blood pressure and weight at each visit; electrocardiogram at pre-randomization visit and at each hospitalization; serum electrolytes; echocardiogram at randomization, at hospitalization discharge, and at six month follow-up; exercise stress tests during index hospitalization and six month follow-up; natriuretic hormone profile at randomization, discharge, and six month follow-up; medical history, endpoints, side effects, hospitalizations and quality of life; and compliance with protocol.

The study consisted of a Clinical Coordinating Center which included a network of 26 clinical units, and an echocardiographic core laboratory. The Protocol developed extended for six months, patient recruitment extended for 48 months, follow-up for six months, and data analysis for six months.

The NHLBI has awarded R01HL67691 in April 2001 as an ancillary study. The study entitled "ESCAPE Mechanistic Substudies" has its own site on this database.

Being tested
catheterization, Swan-Ganz
Medical subject headings
Heart Diseases, Heart Failure

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • catheterization, Swan-GanzProcedure or surgery

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted28 Oct 1999 (estimated)
  2. Study startApr 2001
  3. Primary completionMar 2006
  4. Study completionMar 2006

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase 3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT00000619
Sponsor's protocol ID
122
Status last verified
Jan 2008
First submitted
27 Oct 1999
Last updated
14 Apr 2016
Results posted
No

Publications

  • Shah MR, O'Connor CM, Sopko G, Hasselblad V, Califf RM, Stevenson LW. Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness (ESCAPE): design and rationale. Am Heart J. 2001 Apr;141(4):528-35. doi: 10.1067/mhj.2001.113995.

    PubMed 11275915
  • Binanay C, Califf RM, Hasselblad V, O'Connor CM, Shah MR, Sopko G, Stevenson LW, Francis GS, Leier CV, Miller LW; ESCAPE Investigators and ESCAPE Study Coordinators. Evaluation study of congestive heart failure and pulmonary artery catheterization effectiveness: the ESCAPE trial. JAMA. 2005 Oct 5;294(13):1625-33. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.13.1625.

    PubMed 16204662
  • Cooper LB, Mentz RJ, Stevens SR, Felker GM, Lombardi C, Metra M, Stevenson LW, O'Connor CM, Milano CA, Patel CB, Rogers JG. Hemodynamic Predictors of Heart Failure Morbidity and Mortality: Fluid or Flow? J Card Fail. 2016 Mar;22(3):182-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2015.11.012. Epub 2015 Dec 15.

    PubMed 26703245
  • Kalogeropoulos AP, Marti CN, Georgiopoulou VV, Butler J. Inotrope use and outcomes among patients hospitalized for heart failure: impact of systolic blood pressure, cardiac index, and etiology. J Card Fail. 2014 Aug;20(8):593-601. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2014.05.006. Epub 2014 May 28.

    PubMed 24879975
  • O'Connor CM, Hasselblad V, Mehta RH, Tasissa G, Califf RM, Fiuzat M, Rogers JG, Leier CV, Stevenson LW. Triage after hospitalization with advanced heart failure: the ESCAPE (Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness) risk model and discharge score. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Mar 2;55(9):872-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.08.083.

    PubMed 20185037
  • Nohria A, Hasselblad V, Stebbins A, Pauly DF, Fonarow GC, Shah M, Yancy CW, Califf RM, Stevenson LW, Hill JA. Cardiorenal interactions: insights from the ESCAPE trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Apr 1;51(13):1268-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.08.072.

    PubMed 18371557

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 3 study testing catheterization, Swan-Ganz in people with Heart Diseases and Heart Failure, Congestive, run by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI).

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 14 Apr 2016. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

What does this phase mean?

Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.

Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00000619, which also lists 6 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 14 Apr 2016.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in