ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT00000561Updated Feb 23, 2016

Mode Selection Trial in Sinus Node Dysfunction (MOST)

A Phase 3 interventional study of pacemaker, artificial in Arrhythmia, Cardiovascular Diseases and Heart Diseases, sponsored by Mt. Sinai Medical Center, Miami. Completed. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 75 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2016-02-23.

Sponsored by Mt. Sinai Medical Center, Miami · Phase 3, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 75 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

To determine if dual chamber rate-modulated pacing (DDDR) in patients with sick sinus syndrome is superior to single chamber pacing (VVIR) with respect to subsequent frequency of adverse clinical events such as stroke, quality of life and function, and cost effectiveness.

Read the detailed description

BACKGROUND:

Permanent pacing is estimated to cost one billion dollars annually in health care costs in the United States. Initially, pacing was primarily confined to ventricular pacing with limited sensing, programming and pacing capacity. Tremendous growth has occurred in pacing technology, making available dual chamber pacing with sophisticated sensing, pacing, and rate control. These more advanced pacemakers are more costly and complicated to place surgically.

One of the most common indications for pacing is sick sinus syndrome. Initial therapy is usually medical to inhibit the tachyarrhythmias (most commonly paroxysmal atrial fibrillation). However, if symptomatic bradycardia results, then permanent pacing is commonly employed. The appropriate type of pacing in this setting is not clearly defined and is controversial.

The development of atrioventricular pacing was principally aimed at improving cardiac hemodynamics and creating a more physiological heart rate control. Hemodynamic studies have clearly shown the benefit of this approach in many patients, particularly those with decreased left ventricular compliance in whom atrial activity contributes significantly to cardiac output. Lack of synchronization between the upper and lower chambers of the heart caused by pacing the ventricle alone can result in a constellation of symptoms commonly referred to as "pacemaker syndrome".

The underlying mechanisms by which dual chamber pacing is purported to improve outcome is straightforward; in patients with normal sinus rhythm, cardiac output is improved by 15 to 30 percent. In addition, a number of retrospective studies that have compared single chamber with atrial-based or dual chamber pacing have suggested that the latter may prevent adverse clinical events such as atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, cerebral vascular accidents, and death. While none of these studies was a randomized trial, the literature is consistent with a concept that dual mode pacing results in improved hemodynamics and a more favorable outcome in patients with sick sinus syndrome. However, the data do not provide definitive answers because of small sample sizes and methodological problems. A major problems with all previous studies is probable selection bias favoring implantation of dual chamber devices in younger, healthier patients.

Several small studies have compared functional status and other quality of life measures between single and dual chamber pacing modes and have suggested better quality of life outcomes for the dual chamber mode. Again, these conclusions are severly hampered by the sample sizes, the lack of random assignment or adequate statistical adjustment to control for confounding, use of outdated and/or invalid measures, and potential response bias due to awareness of mode assignment.

DESIGN NARRATIVE:

A multicenter, randomized clinical trial. All patients received a dual chamber pacemaker capable of either single or dual chamber rate modulated pacing. Patients were then randomized to either the single chamber mode or the dual chamber mode. Patients with prior stroke were pre-stratified. Clinical and electrocardiographic data were collected during a 1.5 to 4.5 year follow-up. The primary endpoint was either: first occurrence of stroke, or; total (all-cause) mortality. Secondary endpoints included health status, cost-effectiveness, cardiovascular mortality, composite of any of the three major adverse effects expected in sick sinus syndrome patients (total mortality alone or first stroke or congestive heart failure hospitalization), first occurrence of atrial fibrillation, heart failure score, pacemaker syndrome, health status in women and in the elderly, and outcome of patients with risk factors for pacemaker syndrome. Enrollment was completed in October, 1999 with a total of 2,010 patients.

Quality of life and economic issues were assessed in patients at entry and annually for three years. Questionnaire-based measures of health status and quality of life were compared in the two pacing groups for the entire population and subgroups defined by age and gender. The economic substudy measured the comparative costs, both direct and indirect medical and nonmedical, of the two pacing modes in an attempt to determine the most cost-effective approach to pacemaker treatment of sick sinus syndrome.

Recruitment started October 1, 1995 and was completed October 4, 1999 with 2,010 patients enrolled.

02

Conditions studied

  • Arrhythmia
  • Cardiovascular Diseases
  • Heart Diseases
  • Sick Sinus Syndrome
  • Vascular Diseases
  • Cerebrovascular Accident
03

In context

Arrhythmias, Cardiac

915 studies on the registry are indexed under Arrhythmias, Cardiac; 234 are open to participants now.

Browse Arrhythmias, Cardiac studies →

Lead sponsor

Mt. Sinai Medical Center, Miami is the lead sponsor of 17 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 75 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Eligibility criteria

Men and women with sick sinus syndrome.

05

Study design

Phase
Phase 3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized

Interventions

  • Devicepacemaker, artificial
06

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

07

References and documents

Publications

  • Lamas GA, Lee K, Sweeney M, Leon A, Yee R, Ellenbogen K, Greer S, Wilber D, Silverman R, Marinchak R, Bernstein R, Mittleman RS, Lieberman EH, Sullivan C, Zorn L, Flaker G, Schron E, Orav EJ, Goldman L. The mode selection trial (MOST) in sinus node dysfunction: design, rationale, and baseline characteristics of the first 1000 patients. Am Heart J. 2000 Oct;140(4):541-51. doi: 10.1067/mhj.2000.109652. PubMed 11011325 ↗
  • Lamas GA, Lee KL, Sweeney MO, Silverman R, Leon A, Yee R, Marinchak RA, Flaker G, Schron E, Orav EJ, Hellkamp AS, Greer S, McAnulty J, Ellenbogen K, Ehlert F, Freedman RA, Estes NA 3rd, Greenspon A, Goldman L; Mode Selection Trial in Sinus-Node Dysfunction. Ventricular pacing or dual-chamber pacing for sinus-node dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2002 Jun 13;346(24):1854-62. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa013040. PubMed 12063369 ↗
  • Glotzer TV, Hellkamp AS, Zimmerman J, Sweeney MO, Yee R, Marinchak R, Cook J, Paraschos A, Love J, Radoslovich G, Lee KL, Lamas GA; MOST Investigators. Atrial high rate episodes detected by pacemaker diagnostics predict death and stroke: report of the Atrial Diagnostics Ancillary Study of the MOde Selection Trial (MOST). Circulation. 2003 Apr 1;107(12):1614-9. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000057981.70380.45. Epub 2003 Mar 24. PubMed 12668495 ↗
  • Sweeney MO, Hellkamp AS, Ellenbogen KA, Greenspon AJ, Freedman RA, Lee KL, Lamas GA; MOde Selection Trial Investigators. Adverse effect of ventricular pacing on heart failure and atrial fibrillation among patients with normal baseline QRS duration in a clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node dysfunction. Circulation. 2003 Jun 17;107(23):2932-7. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000072769.17295.B1. Epub 2003 Jun 2. PubMed 12782566 ↗
  • Flaker G, Greenspon A, Tardiff B, Schron E, Goldman L, Hellkamp A, Lee K, Lamas G; Mode Selection Trial (MOST) Investigators. Death in patients with permanent pacemakers for sick sinus syndrome. Am Heart J. 2003 Nov;146(5):887-93. doi: 10.1016/S0002-8703(03)00429-0. PubMed 14597940 ↗
  • Greenspon AJ, Hart RG, Dawson D, Hellkamp AS, Silver M, Flaker GC, Schron E, Goldman L, Lee KL, Lamas GA; MOST Study Investigators. Predictors of stroke in patients paced for sick sinus syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 May 5;43(9):1617-22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2003.09.067. PubMed 15120821 ↗
  • Link MS, Hellkamp AS, Estes NA 3rd, Orav EJ, Ellenbogen KA, Ibrahim B, Greenspon A, Rizo-Patron C, Goldman L, Lee KL, Lamas GA; MOST Study Investigators. High incidence of pacemaker syndrome in patients with sinus node dysfunction treated with ventricular-based pacing in the Mode Selection Trial (MOST). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Jun 2;43(11):2066-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2003.10.072. PubMed 15172414 ↗
  • Sweeney MO, Hellkamp AS, Ellenbogen KA, Glotzer TV, Silverman R, Yee R, Lee KL, Lamas GA; MOST Investigators. Prospective randomized study of mode switching in a clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node dysfunction. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2004 Feb;15(2):153-60. doi: 10.1046/j.1540-8167.2004.03146.x. PubMed 15028043 ↗
  • Rinfret S, Cohen DJ, Lamas GA, Fleischmann KE, Weinstein MC, Orav J, Schron E, Lee KL, Goldman L. Cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacing compared with ventricular pacing for sinus node dysfunction. Circulation. 2005 Jan 18;111(2):165-72. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000151810.69732.41. Epub 2005 Jan 3. PubMed 15630030 ↗
  • Shukla HH, Hellkamp AS, James EA, Flaker GC, Lee KL, Sweeney MO, Lamas GA; Mode Selection Trial (MOST) Investigators. Heart failure hospitalization is more common in pacemaker patients with sinus node dysfunction and a prolonged paced QRS duration. Heart Rhythm. 2005 Mar;2(3):245-51. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2004.12.012. PubMed 15851312 ↗
  • Sweeney MO, Hellkamp AS, Lee KL, Lamas GA; Mode Selection Trial (MOST) Investigators. Association of prolonged QRS duration with death in a clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node dysfunction. Circulation. 2005 May 17;111(19):2418-23. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000165061.23825.A2. Epub 2005 May 2. PubMed 15867173 ↗
08

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
Not marked actual or estimatedDates not marked actual or estimated

The record gives a start of Jun 1995 and a completion of May 2002. It does not say whether these dates are actual or estimated.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Oct 27, 1999
First posted
Oct 28, 1999
Start
Jun 1995
Completion
May 2002
Last update
Feb 23, 2016
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Feb 23, 2016, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT00000561
Lead sponsor
Mt. Sinai Medical Center, Miami
First posted
Oct 28, 1999
Start date
Jun 1995
Completion
May 2002
Last update
Feb 23, 2016

Study contacts

Gervasio Lamas
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Kerry Lee
Duke University
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in May 2005. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion