An interventional study of BIOTRONIK Home Monitoring System and BIOTRONIK Home Monitoring System with In-office Follow-up in Bradyarrhythmia, sponsored by Biotronik Japan, Inc.. Completed at 1 site in Japan. Open to participants aged 20 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-01-27.
Sponsored by Biotronik Japan, Inc. · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
The number of patients with implantable pulse generator (IPG) has steadily increased in Japan causing increment in number of in office follow-ups and greater burden on many hospitals.
The purpose of this multicenter randomized study is to demonstrate that BIOTRONIK Home Monitoring system reduces office follow-up visits without compromising patient safety.
Patients will be randomized into HM follow-up only (Group 1) or HM \& in-office follow-up (Group 2) and will be followed-up for 27 months.
306 studies on the registry are indexed under Bradycardia; 69 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 1,327 is above the median of 99 across 174 interventional studies indexed under Bradycardia.
Browse Bradycardia studies →Biotronik Japan, Inc. is the lead sponsor of 2 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Patients assigned to HM Group(HM follow-up ONLY) will have Home Monitoring programmed ON. They will be seen in the office for device interrogations at the 3-month follow-up, and at 27 month follow-up. In the meanwhile the device status will be evaluated using HM only for the 9, 15 and 21 month scheduled follow-up. Patients will visit the hospital for device interrogation on 27 month final follow-up.
Device: BIOTRONIK Home Monitoring System
Patients assigned to Control Group (HM + Conventional In-office follow-up - Control group) will have HM programmed ON. In addition to HM, these patients will visit the hospital for device interrogation at 3, 9, 15, 21 and 27 month follow-ups.
Device: BIOTRONIK Home Monitoring System with In-office Follow-up
Home Monitoring system transfers implantable device's data to the main server via internet.
Evaluation for Equivalence of the Number of Patients Who Meet the Composite Safety Endpoint Between Home Monitoring Group(HM) and Control Group Which is HM + Conventional In-office Follow-up
The purpose of the primary endpoint is to compare the composite safety endpoint, Safety Event Rate (SER) which includes death, incidence of strokes and cardiovascular related serious adverse events requiring surgical interventions (e.g. device explants or lead revision) between HM Group and Control Group. Safety will be evaluated in the following testable hypothesis in an equivalence (non-inferiority) format: HØ: The safety event rate (SER) for a 24-month duration for Group 1 is not equivalent to the SER for Group 2. SER Group 1 - SER Group 2 ≥ Ha : The safety event rate (SER) for a 12-month duration for Group 1 is equivalent to the SER for Group 2 SER Group 1 - SER Group 2 \< Where, ( )represents the allowable clinically significant difference. 5% was set for the study. A rejection of the null hypothesis (HØ) will indicate that the safety event rate for Group 1 is equivalent (non-inferior) to that of Group 2.
Time frame: 2 years
The Median (IQR) Numbers of In-office Follow-up（FU) Visits Per Patient-year
Average numbers of outpatient follow-up(FU)s per patient are compared between Home Monitoring(HM) group and the control group, assessing total numbers of outpatient FUs combining regular and additional FUs. If the average number of visits in HM group is significantly less than that in Control group, it would serve as supporting evidence that the number of outpatient FUs can be reduced with HM. Analysis is performed on those patients that had a regular 3 months-FU following Intention to treat(ITT) principle. The analysis population of endpoint can be expected to be larger than the analysis population of the primary endpoints because patients with drop-out after the 3-months FU, but before the 27 months-FU will be included. The numbers of FU visits that occur in the 2 groups during the study period are compared as follows: AveN Group 1= Average number of FU visits per 2 years in the HM group AveN Control= Average number of FU visits per 2 years in the control group
Time frame: 2 years
Efficacy of Home Monitoring：Average Cost for In-office Follow-up Per Patient-year
The sum of insured medical expenses for regular and additional outpatient FUs will be compared between HM group and Control group. It shall include Fees of FU consultation, cardiac IPG instruction, and other diagnostic test , but treatment fees including medication. Hospitalization are not included. This analysis is performed on the same ITT population as the analysis set of the first secondary endpoint. To compensate for possible asymmetric drop-out, the comparison will not be cost per patient, but costs per patient-year. Study costs per patient will be calculated by summing up all relevant variables in 3mFU Randomization CRF (points2-11) as well as in InOffice FU CRF and in Additional InOffice FU CRF. Total costs per patient result by multiplying the sum of all points by 10. Unit measurement is Yen. H : The average costs in HM group are not less than that in Control group. AveCostsHM ≥ AveCostsControl Ha: The average costs in HM group are less than that in Control group.
Time frame: 2 years
| Milestone | Home Monitoring Group | Control |
|---|---|---|
| Started | 636 | 638 |
| Completed | 558 | 550 |
| Not completed | 78 | 88 |
The purpose of the primary endpoint is to compare the composite safety endpoint, Safety Event Rate (SER) which includes death, incidence of strokes and cardiovascular related serious adverse events requiring surgical interventions (e.g. device explants or lead revision) between HM Group and Control Group. Safety will be evaluated in the following testable hypothesis in an equivalence (non-inferiority) format: HØ: The safety event rate (SER) for a 24-month duration for Group 1 is not equivalent to the SER for Group 2. SER Group 1 - SER Group 2 ≥ Ha : The safety event rate (SER) for a 12-month duration for Group 1 is equivalent to the SER for Group 2 SER Group 1 - SER Group 2 \< Where, ( )represents the allowable clinically significant difference. 5% was set for the study. A rejection of the null hypothesis (HØ) will indicate that the safety event rate for Group 1 is equivalent (non-inferior) to that of Group 2.
| Participants | Home Monitoring Group | Control |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluation for Equivalence of the Number of Patients Who Meet the Composite Safety Endpoint Between Home Monitoring Group(HM) and Control Group Which is HM + Conventional In-office Follow-up | 61 | 65 |
Average numbers of outpatient follow-up(FU)s per patient are compared between Home Monitoring(HM) group and the control group, assessing total numbers of outpatient FUs combining regular and additional FUs. If the average number of visits in HM group is significantly less than that in Control group, it would serve as supporting evidence that the number of outpatient FUs can be reduced with HM. Analysis is performed on those patients that had a regular 3 months-FU following Intention to treat(ITT) principle. The analysis population of endpoint can be expected to be larger than the analysis population of the primary endpoints because patients with drop-out after the 3-months FU, but before the 27 months-FU will be included. The numbers of FU visits that occur in the 2 groups during the study period are compared as follows: AveN Group 1= Average number of FU visits per 2 years in the HM group AveN Control= Average number of FU visits per 2 years in the control group
| In-office FU visits per patient per year | Home Monitoring(HM) | Control |
|---|---|---|
| The Median (IQR) Numbers of In-office Follow-up（FU) Visits Per Patient-year | 0.69 ± 0.43 | 2.00 ± 0.40 |
The sum of insured medical expenses for regular and additional outpatient FUs will be compared between HM group and Control group. It shall include Fees of FU consultation, cardiac IPG instruction, and other diagnostic test , but treatment fees including medication. Hospitalization are not included. This analysis is performed on the same ITT population as the analysis set of the first secondary endpoint. To compensate for possible asymmetric drop-out, the comparison will not be cost per patient, but costs per patient-year. Study costs per patient will be calculated by summing up all relevant variables in 3mFU Randomization CRF (points2-11) as well as in InOffice FU CRF and in Additional InOffice FU CRF. Total costs per patient result by multiplying the sum of all points by 10. Unit measurement is Yen. H : The average costs in HM group are not less than that in Control group. AveCostsHM ≥ AveCostsControl Ha: The average costs in HM group are less than that in Control group.
| Cost for in-office FU per patint-year | Home Monitoring Group | Control |
|---|---|---|
| Efficacy of Home Monitoring：Average Cost for In-office Follow-up Per Patient-year | 21065 ± 23051 | 23552 ± 23986 |
Collected over 24 months. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.
| Group | Deaths | Serious | Other |
|---|---|---|---|
| Home Monitoring Group | 46/558 (8.2%) | 68/558 (12.2%) | 7/558 (1.3%) |
| Control | 41/550 (7.5%) | 68/550 (12.4%) | 16/550 (2.9%) |
| Event | Home Monitoring Group | Control |
|---|---|---|
| The number of the composite primary endpointCardiac disorders | 61/558 | 65/550 |
| DeathCardiac disorders | 46/558 | 41/550 |
| The number of Cardiovascular surgeryCardiac disorders | 14/558 | 20/550 |
| The number of StrokeVascular disorders | 8/558 | 7/550 |
| Event | Home Monitoring Group | Control |
|---|---|---|
| Other safety eventsCardiac disorders | 7/558 | 16/550 |
| Age, Continuous(years) | Home Monitoring Group | Control | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 75.8 ± 9.7 | 77.2 ± 9.7 | 77 ± 10 |
| Sex: Female, Male(Participants) | Home Monitoring Group | Control | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 297 | 345 | 642 |
| Male | 339 | 293 | 632 |
| Region of Enrollment(participants) | Home Monitoring Group | Control | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Japan | 636 | 638 | 1274 |
This study is completed, as verified in Jan 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions 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.
Biotronik Japan, Inc.