An interventional study of Remote Patient Management and Standard of Care in Cardiac Arrhythmia, sponsored by Ratika Parkash. Completed at 12 sites in Canada. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-09-03.
Sponsored by Ratika Parkash · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
Among 73 studies in Arrhythmias, Cardiac with a site in Canada — 13 open to participants now, 15 under way, none of them phase 3. Arrhythmias, Cardiac · Canada.
Among the 73 studies in Arrhythmias, Cardiac with a site in Canada, this one is the 7th largest by enrollment of the 49 interventional ones that give a count, is one of 4 that started in 2020, is one of 25 with no phase, and was the 46th registered.
1,051 studies on the registry are indexed under Arrhythmias, Cardiac; 236 are open to participants now.
Browse Arrhythmias, Cardiac studies →13 of the 73 studies in Arrhythmias, Cardiac with a site in Canada are open now. Recruiting first, the newest first:
Cardurion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Sites in Canada, United States, France and 3 more countries
Ages 18–99
Novartis Pharmaceuticals · Sites in Canada, United States, China and 4 more countries
Ages 18+
Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation · Sites in Canada
Ages 18+
Myant Medical Corp. · Sites in Canada
Ages 18+
London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph's · Sites in Canada
Ages 18–80 · Healthy volunteers
A study can be open while its sites in Canada have not opened yet or have stopped. Only those recruiting at a site in Canada →
Of the 167 Arrhythmias, Cardiac studies recruiting now, 118 (71%) set no upper age limit and 13 (8%) stop at 75 or younger; 31 take children under 18; 26 take healthy volunteers.
This study: 18 Years and older · all sexes · no healthy volunteers.
The full table on the hub →This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.
73 studies; the count open now beside each. This study's row is marked.
A study in two phases is counted once above. Listed by phase, each with its combined phases: Phase 2 9 · Phase 3 13 · Phase 4 3
First in 1983; this study’s year is marked. 4 started in 2020.
By drug class, each counting the studies that test any of its medicines:
This study's enrollment of 1,115 is above the median of 100 across 517 interventional studies indexed under Arrhythmias, Cardiac.
Median enrollment 240 across the 49 interventional studies, 172 across the 24 observational. Of the 53 that completed or were terminated, 13 (25%) have results posted.
This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.
34 of 73 have an industry lead sponsor. The 10 most frequent:
Ratika Parkash is the lead sponsor of 5 studies on the registry; 1 is open to participants now.
Ratika Parkash has 2 studies filed under Arrhythmias, Cardiac — fewer than ten, so there is no comparison to draw.
9 of the studies in Arrhythmias, Cardiac with a site in Canada that are under way reach primary completion within a year, 0 of them phase 3. Phase 3 first, then by date:
| Study | Primary completion |
|---|---|
| NCT04278404Duke UniversityPharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Safety Profile of Understudied Drugs Administered to Children Per Standard of Care (POPS) | 2026-11 |
| NCT04520347University of California, Los AngelesIVTCC 2.0: A Prospective Multicenter Ventricular Tachycardia Catheter Ablation Registry | 2026-12 |
| NCT05258422McGill University Health Centre/Research Institute of the McGill University Health CentreStereotactic Arrhythmia Radioablation for Ventricular Tachycardia (StAR-VT) | 2026-12-31 |
| NCT06164808HelpWear Inc.Cardiac Arrhythmia Telemetry; Conventional vs HeartWatch | 2026-12-31 |
| NCT06174220Hamilton Health Sciences CorporationTargeted Therapy With Glycogen Synthase Kinase-3 Inhibition for Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy | 2027-02-01 |
Add all 9 to your calendar (.ics) → With an account.
Among the 73 studies in Arrhythmias, Cardiac with a site in Canada, from their registry updates:
This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.
This is a Canadian multicenter randomized controlled trial to assess remote patient management. Patients will be randomized to remote patient management with VIRTUES versus usual care, and will be stratified by RemoteView vs no RemoteView utilization, as well as by center.
Remote monitoring (RM) has been in use for over a decade and is now used in a blended system of in clinic visits and RM to provide CIED follow up. Prior studies have focused on this blended model of follow up. In this study, we propose a paradigm shift in CIED follow up care that is fully remote, supported by a patient-centered communication system permitting patients to have greater understanding of their CIED and its function. Patients would not have to leave their own communities to obtain state-of-the art care for their cardiac condition or their CIED. Given the burgeoning use of CIEDs (ICDs and PMs), the aging population and particularly in Canada where 19% of the inhabitants are in communities classified as 'rural', many have long distances to travel to reach a health care facility, it is of the utmost importance to take full advantage of available and developing technologies to improve CIED follow up beyond current recommendations. During the life of these patients, many issues may arise, such as atrial or ventricular arrhythmias that may result in syncope, stroke or sudden death, need for increased monitoring resulting from device advisories, or minor programming adjustments to improve device performance, or simply the need for enhanced surveillance as the device battery depletes and replacement is anticipated. New technology has become available that not only permits surveillance, but also permits communication back to the patient, and their respective providers regarding the status of these devices. The combination of technologies will result in a total care of CIEDs termed Remote Patient Management - CIED (RPM-CIED). The incorporation of enhanced monitoring capability, along with automatic recalibration of device settings, allows us to develop a new paradigm of remote patient management where after the patient receives their device, they would remain in the care of their local health team ('spokes') and no longer require travel to the specialized device clinics ('hubs') for follow-up. It creates capacity in the specialized centers to focus exclusively on the problematic cases by removing the need for routine checks.
There are two avenues of new technology that will be used in this study:
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Patients will be followed by remote monitoring only.
Device: Remote Patient Management
Remote monitoring at 6 month intervals, alternating with yearly in-clinic visits at their usual site.
Device: Standard of Care
1. Transmissions will occur at six monthly intervals, with no in-clinic visits. If there is an actionable event on the remote transmission, patients will be seen at their closest community clinic. 2. All patients will be required to follow up with their family physician at least annually, and their cardiologist at least every 2 years. 3. Patients will be contacted by phone at 6 months and 12 months to document their current health status (change in cardiovascular medications, any cardiovascular hospitalizations, in-clinic device checks, or any new cardiovascular testing completed since the last visit) 4. VIRTUES access
No intervention
Time to major adverse cardiac event (primary safety outcome)
Time to a major adverse event, including: death, stroke, hospitalization for complications relating to the device system, cardiovascular hospitalization, syncope, device-related Emergency Department visits.
Time frame: 18 months
Time to a device-detected event (primary efficacy outcome)
The response time from a clinical event to a clinical decision in response to arrhythmias, cardiovascular disease progression, and device issues with remote patient management as compared to standard of care
Time frame: 18 months
Medication Compliance
Compliance will be measured according to current Canadian Cardiovascular Society Heart Failure Guidelines
Time frame: 18 Months
Minimum programming compliance
Minimum ICD programming according to Canadian Heart Rhythm Society programming recommendations
Time frame: 18 months
Number of clinical events leading to a change in medication
Events detected by the ICD that lead to a clinical decision to change medication
Time frame: 18 months
Inappropriate ICD shocks
Number of inappropriate ICD shocks
Time frame: 18 months
Appropriate ICD shocks
Number of appropriate ICD shocks
Time frame: 18 months
Time to detection of ventricular arrhythmia events
device-detected ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia
Time frame: 18 months
Detection of atrial high-rate episodes
Device detected high-rate episodes greater than 6 minutes
Time frame: 18 months
Number of Cardiovascular-related ER visits
Number of cardiovascular-related visits (\<24 hours)
Time frame: 18 months
Number of Device-Related ER visits
ER visits (\<24 hrs) for a device-related reason (including an audio signal from the device (beeping), shock(s), or a device complication requiring medical attention)
Time frame: 18 Months
Rate of syncope
Syncope
Time frame: 18 months
Cost effectiveness
An economic evaluation will include a cost utility analysis
Time frame: 18 months
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
Ran from May 2020 to primary completion in Apr 2026, 71 months.
Of 171 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Arrhythmias, Cardiac, half reached primary completion within 30 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 14 and three quarters within 43. This study's 71 months is above that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 242 studies reached it within 24 months; a quarter within 12 and three quarters within 40.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is completed, as verified in Sep 2026. 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.
Ratika Parkash