A PRospective, rAndomizEd Comparison of subcuTaneOous and tRansvenous ImplANtable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy (PRAETORIAN)

Academisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA)

Status

Active, not recruiting

Conditions

Ventricular Arrhythmias

Treatments

Device: Implantation of transvenous ICD

Device: Implantation of subcutaneous ICD

Study type

Interventional

Funder types

Other

Industry

Identifiers

NCT01296022

NL34725.018.10 (Other Identifier)

Details and patient eligibility

About

This randomized controlled trial will outline the advantages and disadvantages of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) compared to the transvenous ICD.

Full description

Background of the study: The use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) is an established therapy for the prevention of death from ventricular arrhythmia. Recently a new subcutaneous ICD has been introduced, eliminating the need for transvenous lead placement in or on the heart which is mandatory in the transvenous ICD. The new subcutaneous ICD therapy already proved to be feasible and safe and is an approved therapy in Europe. It is likely that the eliminated need for transvenous lead placement substantially reduces the implantation related complications and elongates lead longevity and thus reduces inappropriate shocks associated with lead fractures. On the other hand it is unclear whether the lack of capability to provide antitachy-pacing (ATP) in the subcutaneous ICD may be a limitation for patients with frequent recurrent ventricular tachycardia. This randomized controlled trial will outline the advantages and disadvantages of the subcutaneous ICD.

Objectives of the study: (1) To compare the subcutaneous ICD to the transvenous ICD for major adverse events (i.e. inappropriate shocks, acute and chronic implant related complications and lead- or device related complications). (2) To determine to which degree the lack of ATP function leads to more appropriate shocks in patients with a subcutaneous ICD.

Study design: Multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial with either treatment with the transvenous ICD or subcutaneous ICD (1:1).

Study population: 2x425 patients with class I or IIa indication for ICD therapy without an indication for pacing.

Enrollment

850 estimated patients

Sex

All

Ages

18+ years old

Volunteers

No Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

Patients 18 years and older
Patients with class I or IIa indication for ICD therapy according to the ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for Management of Patients With Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death

Exclusion criteria

Patients with documented therapy refractory monomorphic ventricular tachycardia
Patients having an indication for pacing therapy
Patients with ventricular tachycardia less than 170 bpm
Patients failing appropriate QRS/T-wave sensing with the S-ICD ECG patient screening tool provided by Cameron Health/Boston Scientific
Patients with incessant ventricular tachycardia
Patients with a serious known concomitant disease with a life expectancy of less than one year
Patients with circumstances that prevent follow-up (no permanent home or address, transient, etc.)
Patients who have had a previous ICD implant
Patient who receive cardiac contractility modulation therapy or are likely to receive cardiac contractility modulation therapy.
Patients who are unable to give informed consent