CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT02964650OPT-CUpdated Mar 25, 2020

Optimising Pacemaker Therapy for Contractility

A Phase 2 interventional study of Personalised rate-response settings in Chronic Heart Failure, sponsored by University of Leeds. Completed at 1 site in United Kingdom. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-03-25.

Sponsored by University of Leeds · Phase 2, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
83
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The investigators have demonstrated that they can reliably identify an optimum heart rate range for contractility of the left ventricle in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). They have also demonstrated in an acute cross-over study that keeping the heart rate in this range (versus standard rate-response programming) in patients with CHF is associated with increased exercise time on a treadmill (around 60s or 10%). They now want to explore in a randomised, placebo-controlled trial whether optimal programming versus standard rate-response programming for 6 months leads to appreciable improvements in exercise time and quality of life, while having no adverse effects on left ventricular function and battery longevity.

60 patients with CHF and a pacemaker will undergo the non-invasive echocardiographic assessment to establish the force frequency relationship and the optimal heart rate for contractility. They will then perform a treadmill walk test and fill out a quality of life questionnaire. They will then be randomised to optimal rate-response settings or standard rate response settings and followed up at 6 months at which point the tests will be repeated.

Read the detailed description

Design: This will be a randomised, double-blind 'placebo' controlled trial of optimised programming versus standard rate-response settings, aiming to determine whether the short term improvements translate into longer term benefits.

Study participants: 60 adult patients (>18years) aiming for 50 matched datasets (25 in each arm).

Study Procedures: Patients attending the heart failure clinic, the pacemaker clinic or previous participants in the acute cross-over study (pilot data 2) will be approached with a standard letter and information sheet and then a telephone call to make sure any remaining questions are answered.

Patients agreeing to participate will attend the clinical research facility (CRF) and will be asked to sign a consent form. Each patient will have a standard device check, check of their demographic data, and co-morbidities. The investigators will record a resting cardiac ultrasound, and, in those who did not participate in the pilot study (or did so more than six months previously), we will measure the force frequency relationship (FFR) as described to determine critical heart rate (HR), and the optimal range of HR rise. All images will be stored for offline analysis. Participants will then be asked to do a symptom-limited walk test on the treadmill (until they cannot do any more). At this first visit, participants will also complete a quality of life questionnaire. All of these activities will take place in the Clinical Research Facility at Leeds General Infirmary.

Randomisation: Each patient will then be randomised to either optimised programming (n=30) as predicted by their force-frequency curve or standard settings (n=30). In the optimised group, programming will keep heart rates below the critical HR. Randomisation will be by a random number generator and programming will be undertaken by one of my colleagues to maintain blinding.

Follow-up: Each patient will be called at one month to check that they are tolerating any changes and will then be invited back at 6 months for a repeat resting echocardiogram, treadmill walk test and quality of life assessment.

Data: All data will be stored on a bespoke Excel spreadsheet on an LTHT server in a password-protected folder.

Primary Endpoint: The effects of heart rate programming that optimises heart rate for contractility on change in treadmill-based walk distance over six months in patients with heart failure and a pacemaker.

Secondary endpoints: 1) the safety of pacemaker programming optimised for heart rate in patients with heart failure and a pacemaker, 2) the effect of this programming on change of quality of life at 6 months 3) the effect of this programming on change in cardiac function at 6 months.

02

Conditions studied

  • Chronic Heart Failure

Browse trials for

03

In context

Heart Failure

5,697 studies on the registry are indexed under Heart Failure; 1,219 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 83 is above the median of 72 across 3,733 interventional studies indexed under Heart Failure.

Browse Heart Failure studies →

Lead sponsor

University of Leeds is the lead sponsor of 200 studies on the registry; 25 are 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

  • Symptomatic CHF due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVEF\<45%),
  • Cardiac pacemaker,
  • Able to perform a peak exercise test,
  • Willing and able to give informed consent.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Angina pectoris symptoms limiting exercise tolerance,
  • Unstable heart failure symptoms (medical therapy changes in last three months), Poor image quality,
  • Calcium channel blockers (CCBs).
05

Study design

Phase
Phase 2
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Quadruple (Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
83 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • No intervention
    Standard rate-response settings

    Patients allocated to standard rate-response settings.

  • Experimental
    Personalised rate-response settings

    Patients allocated to optimised rate-response settings.

    Device: Personalised rate-response settings

Interventions

  • DevicePersonalised rate-response settings

    Rate response range fixed to limits suggested by force-frequency curve

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Treadmill walk time

    Time walked during a standard incremental treadmill test

    Time frame: 6 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. Quality of life

    EQ5D-5L

    Time frame: 6 months

  2. Left ventricular function by echocardiography

    Time frame: 6 months

  3. Battery longevity

    Measured in years remaining at current settings

    Time frame: 6 months

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Leeds General Infirmary
    Leeds, United Kingdom
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Gierula J, Lowry JE, Paton MF, Cole CA, Byrom R, Koshy AO, Chumun H, Kearney LC, Straw S, Bowen TS, Cubbon RM, Keenan AM, Stocken DD, Kearney MT, Witte KK. Personalized Rate-Response Programming Improves Exercise Tolerance After 6 Months in People With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices and Heart Failure: A Phase II Study. Circulation. 2020 May 26;141(21):1693-1703. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.045066. Epub 2020 Apr 17. PubMed 32299222 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Mar 25, 2020, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02964650
Lead sponsor
University of Leeds
Responsible party
KK Witte (Senior Lecturer in Cardiology, University of Leeds) — Principal investigator
First posted
Nov 16, 2016
Start date
Jun 20, 2017
Primary completion
Sep 30, 2019
Completion
Oct 31, 2019
Last update
Mar 25, 2020

Study contacts

Klaus Witte, MD
principal investigator · University of Leeds

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Mar 2020. 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