AzTrials
AzTrials

Cardiac Pacemaker, ArtificialATHENSNCT01073449

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

An observational study of Cardiac Pacemaker, Artificial and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator, run by Cliniche Humanitas Gavazzeni at 8 sites in Italy.

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

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… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Any age
What is being tested?
In-hospital follow-up of cardiac device
Type of treatment
Surgery or procedure
How many people
3,362 participants
Where
8 sitesItaly
Study dates
Feb 2010to Jan 2011
Phase
Observational

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 Any age
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Child, Adult, Older adult

Study population: All patients who will undergo an in-hospital follow-up of a cardiac device

Who may be able to join

  • All patients with a cardiac device

Who cannot join

  • Follow-up of a cardiac device at discharge from hospital after first implant

Trial locations and contacts

8 sites in 1 country.

8 sites in 1 country

Italy8 sites
  • U.O. Aritmologia - Cliniche Humanitas Gavazzeni

    Bergamo, Bergamo, 24121

  • Laboratorio di Elettrofisiologia - Spedali Civili

    Brescia, Brescia, 25123

  • Laboratorio di Cardiologia - Ospedale Civile

    Casalmaggiore, Cremona, 26041

  • Laboratorio di Elettrofisiologia

    Desenzano del Garda, Brescia, 25015

  • Laboratorio di Elettrofisiologia - Ospedale A. Manzoni

    Lecco, Lecco, 23900

  • Laboratorio di Elettrofisiologia - Ospedale Carlo Poma

    Mantua, Mantova, 46100

  • Laboratorio di Elettrofisiologia

    Merate, Lecco, 23807

  • Laboratorio di Elettrofisiologia - Ospedale San Matteo

    Pavia, Pavia, 27100

Other trials in Italy

About this study

Official title: Action Elicited By Scheduled In-Hospital Follow-Up of Cardiac Devices

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.

Read the detailed description

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?
Being tested
In-hospital follow-up of cardiac device
Keywords
Cardiac devices, In-Hospital Follow-up, Analytical

What participants receive

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

  • In-hospital follow-up of cardiac deviceProcedure or surgery

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

Study groups in NCT01073449
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Cardiac deviceAll patients implanted with a cardiac device, pacemaker(PM)or Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD)
Receives: Procedure: In-hospital follow-up of cardiac device

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Number of Patients of the Whole Population in Whom Something (Therapy, Device Programming ...) Has Been Changed During In-hospital Follow-up

    Measured: 4 months

Secondary outcomes (2)
  1. Number of Patients -Amongst Those Implanted With a Pacemaker - in Whom Something (Therapy, Device Programming ...) Has Been Changed During In-hospital Follow-up

    Measured: 4 months

  2. Number of Patients - Amongst Those Implanted With an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD)- in Whom Something (Therapy, Device Programming ...) Has Been Changed During In-hospital Follow-up

    Measured: 4 months

Timeline

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

  1. First posted23 Feb 2010 (estimated)
  2. Study startFeb 2010
  3. Primary completionJan 2011
  4. Study completionJan 2011

Resources

More details

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

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrolment
3,362 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT01073449
Sponsor's protocol ID
GAVBS1
Acronym
ATHENS
Status last verified
Jan 2011
First submitted
22 Feb 2010
Last updated
28 Feb 2011
Data monitoring committee
No

Publications

  • 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.

    PubMed 15944090
  • 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.

    PubMed 15683509
  • 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.

    PubMed 16598602
  • 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.

    PubMed 21764815

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in