CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT00336284TRUSTUpdated Aug 3, 2010Results posted

TRUST: Lumos-T Safely RedUceS RouTine Office Device Follow-up

A Phase 4 interventional study of Home Monitoring and In-Office Conventional Follow-up in Patient Indicated for an ICD, sponsored by Biotronik, Inc.. Completed at 110 sites in 2 countries. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2010-08-03.

Sponsored by Biotronik, Inc. · Phase 4, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
1,450
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This study is a multi-center, prospective and randomized trial. The primary objective of this study is to demonstrate that the use of the BIOTRONIK Home Monitoring system (HM) can safely reduce the number of regularly scheduled office follow-up visits, compared to the conventional method of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) follow-up.

02

Conditions studied

  • Patient Indicated for an ICD

Keywords

  • Telemonitoring
  • ICD
  • Reduction of office follow-ups
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Biotronik, Inc. is the lead sponsor of 32 studies on the registry; 1 is open to participants now.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Implanted within the last 45 days or being considered for implant with a BIOTRONIK ICD with Home Monitoring (HM)/Intracardiac Electrogram (IEGM)-Online technology, or legally marketed future generation device with HM/IEGM Online.
  • Able to utilize the HM system throughout the study
  • Ability to give informed consent
  • Geographically stable and able to return for regular follow-ups for fifteen (15) months
  • At least 18 years old

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients who do not fulfill all inclusion criteria
  • Pacemaker dependent
  • Currently enrolled in any other cardiac clinical investigation
05

Study design

Phase
Phase 4
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
1,450 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Home Monitoring

    Home Monitoring programmed on.

    Other: Home Monitoring

  • Other
    In-Office Conventional Follow-up

    Home Monitoring programmed off.

    Other: In-Office Conventional Follow-up

Interventions

  • OtherHome Monitoring

    Home Monitoring programmed on. In-office and Home Monitoring evaluation at 3 and 15 months post ICD implant. Home Monitoring evaluation only at 6, 9, and 12 months post ICD implant.

  • OtherIn-Office Conventional Follow-up

    Home Monitoring programmed off. In-office evaluations at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months post ICD implant.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Home Monitoring Effectiveness

    Average number of office-based implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) follow-up visits in the Home Monitoring arm vs the Conventional (calendar-based) follow-up arm.

    Time frame: 12 months

  2. Percent of Participants Experiencing Death, Incidence of Stroke, or Event Requiring Surgical Intervention.

    Percentage of participants experiencing death, incidence of stroke, or event(s) requiring surgical intervention. Outcome measure time frame is 12 months.

    Time frame: 12 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. Early Detection of Cardiac Events

    Detection time relative to onset of cardiac events (atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation).

    Time frame: 12 months

  2. Patient Initiated Follow-up

    Percentage of total patient initiated inqueries that result in ER or office follow-up visits.

    Time frame: 12 months

07

Results

Posted Mar 30, 2010

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneHome MonitoringConventional
Started977473
Completed741322
Not completed236151
Withdrew: Death5226
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up8261
Withdrew: Withdrawal by physician or subject10264

Outcome measures

PrimaryHome Monitoring Effectiveness

Average number of office-based implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) follow-up visits in the Home Monitoring arm vs the Conventional (calendar-based) follow-up arm.

Time frame:
12 months
Reported as:
Mean · In-office ICD follow-up per patient year
Home Monitoring Effectiveness
In-office ICD follow-up per patient yearHome MonitoringConventional
Home Monitoring Effectiveness2.1 (0 to 45.6)3.8 (0 to 19.2)
Statistical analysis
  • Home Monitoring vs Conventional · t-test, 2 sided · p = <0.001
PrimaryPercent of Participants Experiencing Death, Incidence of Stroke, or Event Requiring Surgical Intervention.

Percentage of participants experiencing death, incidence of stroke, or event(s) requiring surgical intervention. Outcome measure time frame is 12 months.

Time frame:
12 months
Reported as:
Number · Percentage of participants
Percent of Participants Experiencing Death, Incidence of Stroke, or Event Requiring Surgical Intervention.
Percentage of participantsHome MonitoringConventional
Percent of Participants Experiencing Death, Incidence of Stroke, or Event Requiring Surgical Intervention.10.410.4
Statistical analysis
  • Home Monitoring vs Conventional · Exact binomial test for non-inferiority · p = 0.0051-sided
SecondaryEarly Detection of Cardiac Events

Detection time relative to onset of cardiac events (atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation).

Time frame:
12 months
Reported as:
Mean · Days
Early Detection of Cardiac Events
DaysHome MonitoringConventional
Early Detection of Cardiac Events13.98 (0 to 256)45.34 (0 to 287)
Statistical analysis
  • Home Monitoring vs Conventional · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.016
SecondaryPatient Initiated Follow-up

Percentage of total patient initiated inqueries that result in ER or office follow-up visits.

Time frame:
12 months
Reported as:
Number · percent of patient initiated follow-ups
Patient Initiated Follow-up
percent of patient initiated follow-upsHome MonitoringConventional
Patient Initiated Follow-up92.7100

Adverse events

Collected over 15 Months. Non-serious events are listed at a 5% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Home Monitoring—124/977 (12.7%)0/977 (0%)
Conventional—74/473 (15.6%)0/473 (0%)
Most frequent serious events
Showing 10 of 16
Most frequent serious events
EventHome MonitoringConventional
Cardiac related hospitalizationsCardiac disorders45/97731/473
DeathGeneral disorders52/97726/473
Device revisionSurgical and medical procedures17/9777/473
Lead revision/explant/replacementSurgical and medical procedures16/9775/473
Non-cardiac related hospitalizationsGeneral disorders16/9773/473
Catheterization/PCI procedureSurgical and medical procedures15/9773/473
Ablation procedureSurgical and medical procedures5/9774/473
Device change-outSurgical and medical procedures8/9773/473
Non-cardiac surgical interventionsSurgical and medical procedures7/9773/473
Coronary artery bypass graft procedureSurgical and medical procedures3/9770/473

Baseline characteristics

Age Continuous
Age Continuous(years)Home MonitoringConventionalTotal
Mean63 ± 1364 ± 1264 ± 13
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Home MonitoringConventionalTotal
Female254116370
Male654315969
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)Home MonitoringConventionalTotal
United States8964251321
Canada12618
08

Study locations

110 sites
  • Site 55
    Birmingham, Alabama 35294, United States
  • Site 68
    Mesa, Arizona 85205, United States
  • Site 99
    Phoenix, Arizona 85016, United States
  • Site 118
    Bakersfield, California 93301, United States
  • Site 91
    Bakersfield, California 93301, United States
  • Site 95
    Burbank, California 91505, United States
  • Site 72
    Fairfield, California 94533, United States
  • Site 43
    Fremont, California 94568, United States
  • Site 90
    Fresno, California 93701, United States
  • Site 73
    Fresno, California 93720, United States
  • Site 75
    Fresno, California 93720, United States
  • Site 67
    Glendale, California 91203, United States
  • Site 82
    Jackson, California 95642, United States
  • Site 78
    Mission Viejo, California 92691, United States
  • Site 15
    Sherman Oaks, California 91403, United States
  • Site 89
    Simi Valley, California 93065, United States
  • Site 88
    Whittier, California 90603, United States
  • Site 37
    Boulder, Colorado 80304, United States
  • Site 38
    Boulder, Colorado 80304, United States
  • Site 98
    Denver, Colorado 80210, United States
  • Site 122
    Newark, Delaware 19713, United States
  • Site 100
    Brooksville, Florida 34613, United States
  • Site 111
    Jacksonville, Florida 32207, United States
  • Site 40
    Lakeland, Florida 33803, United States
  • Site 36
    Lauderdale Lakes, Florida 33313, United States
  • Site 34
    Miami, Florida 33176, United States
  • Site 42
    Oakland Park, Florida 33334, United States
  • Site 13
    Port Charlotte, Florida 33952, United States
  • Site 41
    Tamarac, Florida 33321, United States
  • Site 60
    Vero Beach, Florida 32960, United States
  • Site 6
    Canton, Georgia 30114, United States
  • Site 106
    Douglas, Georgia 31533, United States
  • Site 61
    Lawrenceville, Georgia 30045, United States
  • Site 10
    Marietta, Georgia 30060, United States
  • Site 66
    Marietta, Georgia 30060, United States
  • Site 21
    Chicago, Illinois 60153, United States
  • Site 124
    Chicago, Illinois 60657, United States
  • Site 39
    Oak Lawn, Illinois 60453, United States
  • Site 3
    Louisville, Kentucky 40215, United States
  • Site 11
    Owensboro, Kentucky 42303, United States
  • Site 51
    Covington, Louisiana 70433, United States
  • Site 79
    Hammond, Louisiana 70403, United States
  • Site 85
    Lacombe, Louisiana 70445, United States
  • Site 102
    Lafayette, Louisiana 70503, United States
  • Site 2
    Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601, United States
  • Site 53
    New Orleans, Louisiana 70112, United States
  • Site 17
    Annapolis, Maryland 21401, United States
  • Site 25
    Lanham, Maryland 20706, United States
  • Site 17
    Riverdale, Maryland 20737, United States
  • Site 18
    Rockville, Maryland 20852, United States
  • Site 29
    Boston, Massachusetts 02135, United States
  • Site 94
    Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-0273, United States
  • Site 103
    Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302, United States
  • Site 4
    Lansing, Michigan 48910, United States
  • Site 12
    Lapeer, Michigan 48446, United States
  • Site 22
    Saginaw, Michigan 48601, United States
  • Site 14
    Corinth, Mississippi 38834, United States
  • Site 52
    Gulfport, Mississippi 39503, United States
  • Site 49
    Bridgeton, Missouri 63044, United States
  • Site 105
    Festus, Missouri 63028, United States
  • Site 121
    Festus, Missouri 63028, United States
  • Site 45
    Moberly, Missouri 65270, United States
  • Site 56
    Osage Beach, Missouri 65065, United States
  • Site 108
    St. Louis, Missouri 63103, United States
  • Site 114
    St. Louis, Missouri 63117, United States
  • Site 48
    St. Louis, Missouri 63128, United States
  • Site 113
    St. Louis, Missouri 63131, United States
  • Site 74
    St. Louis, Missouri 63131, United States
  • Site 47
    University City, Missouri 63130, United States
  • Site 117
    Brick, New Jersey 08724, United States
  • Site 120
    East Brunswick, New Jersey 08816, United States
  • Site 107
    East Orange, New Jersey 07019, United States
  • Site 119
    Elizabeth, New Jersey 07202, United States
  • Site 116
    Oakhurst, New Jersey 07755, United States
  • Site 71
    Wayne, New Jersey 07470, United States
  • Site 97
    Las Cruces, New Mexico 88011, United States
  • Site 112
    Batavia, New York 14020, United States
  • Site 19
    Brooklyn, New York 11203, United States
  • Site 27
    Brooklyn, New York 11203, United States
  • Site 26
    Brooklyn, New York 11209, United States
  • Site 77
    Brooklyn, New York 11223, United States
  • Site 9
    Johnson City, New York 13790, United States
  • Site 35
    New York, New York 10021, United States
  • Site 76
    New York, New York 10028, United States
  • Site 115
    Pinehurst, North Carolina 28374, United States
  • Site 57
    Cleveland, Ohio 44195, United States
  • Site 16
    Columbus, Ohio 43210, United States
  • Site 50
    Columbus, Ohio 43228, United States
  • Site 84
    Fairview Park, Ohio 44129, United States
  • Site 93
    Massillon, Ohio 44646, United States
  • Site 30
    Middletown, Ohio 45042, United States
  • Site 87
    Middletown, Ohio 45042, United States
  • Site 96
    Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136, United States
  • Site 63
    Chinchilla, Pennsylvania 18410, United States
  • Site 62
    Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania 18411, United States
  • Site 32
    Upland, Pennsylvania 19013, United States
  • Site 23
    Columbia, South Carolina 29204, United States
  • Site 20
    Florence, South Carolina 29506, United States
  • Site 109
    Lancaster, South Carolina 29720, United States
  • Site 5
    Rock Hill, South Carolina 29732, United States

Showing the first 100 of 110 sites across 2 countries.

09

References and documents

Publications

  • Varma N, Epstein AE, Irimpen A, Schweikert R, Love C; TRUST Investigators. Efficacy and safety of automatic remote monitoring for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator follow-up: the Lumos-T Safely Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-up (TRUST) trial. Circulation. 2010 Jul 27;122(4):325-32. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.937409. Epub 2010 Jul 12. PubMed 20625110 ↗
  • Varma N, Love CJ, Michalski J, Epstein AE; TRUST Investigators. Alert-Based ICD Follow-Up: A Model of Digitally Driven Remote Patient Monitoring. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021 Aug;7(8):976-987. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2021.01.008. Epub 2021 Feb 24. PubMed 33640345 ↗
  • Varma N, Love CJ, Schweikert R, Moll P, Michalski J, Epstein AE; TRUST Investigators. Automatic remote monitoring utilizing daily transmissions: transmission reliability and implantable cardioverter defibrillator battery longevity in the TRUST trial. Europace. 2018 Apr 1;20(4):622-628. doi: 10.1093/europace/eux059. PubMed 29016878 ↗
  • Varma N, Epstein AE, Schweikert R, Michalski J, Love CJ; TRUST Investigators. Role of Automatic Wireless Remote Monitoring Immediately Following ICD Implant: The Lumos-T Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-Up Study (TRUST) Trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016 Mar;27(3):321-6. doi: 10.1111/jce.12895. Epub 2016 Jan 27. PubMed 26661687 ↗
  • Varma N, Michalski J, Stambler B, Pavri BB; TRUST Investigators. Superiority of automatic remote monitoring compared with in-person evaluation for scheduled ICD follow-up in the TRUST trial - testing execution of the recommendations. Eur Heart J. 2014 May 21;35(20):1345-52. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu066. Epub 2014 Mar 3. PubMed 24595864 ↗
  • Varma N, Pavri BB, Stambler B, Michalski J; TRUST Investigators. Same-day discovery of implantable cardioverter defibrillator dysfunction in the TRUST remote monitoring trial: influence of contrasting messaging systems. Europace. 2013 May;15(5):697-703. doi: 10.1093/europace/eus410. Epub 2012 Dec 19. PubMed 23258817 ↗
  • Varma N, Michalski J, Epstein AE, Schweikert R. Automatic remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead and generator performance: the Lumos-T Safely RedUceS RouTine Office Device Follow-Up (TRUST) trial. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010 Oct;3(5):428-36. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.110.951962. Epub 2010 Aug 17. PubMed 20716717 ↗
10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 3, 2010, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT00336284
Lead sponsor
Biotronik, Inc.
First posted
Jun 13, 2006
Start date
Nov 2005
Primary completion
Jun 2009
Completion
Jun 2009
Results posted
Mar 30, 2010
Last update
Aug 3, 2010

Study contacts

Niraj Varma, MD, FRCP
principal investigator · The Cleveland Clinic

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2010. 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