Key result
The BRAVO study protocol outlines a randomized crossover trial to determine if haemodynamic optimization of pacemaker settings is non-inferior to echocardiographic optimization in heart failure patients.
Why the study?
Does haemodynamic optimization of AV and VV delay using non-invasive blood pressure monitoring improve objective exercise capacity compared to echocardiographic optimization in patients with a previously implanted cardiac resynchronization therapy device?
RCT (n=400)
Open-label with blinded evaluation of endpoints (PROBE)
Randomized, cross-over
Yes
Does haemodynamic optimization of AV and VV delay using non-invasive blood pressure monitoring improve objective exercise capacity compared to echocardiographic optimization in patients with a previously implanted cardiac resynchronization therapy device?
The BRAVO study protocol outlines a non-inferiority trial to determine if automated, non-invasive haemodynamic optimization of CRT devices is an acceptable alternative to time-consuming echocardiographic optimization.
BACKGROUND: Echocardiographic optimization of pacemaker settings is the current standard of care for patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy. However, the process requires considerable time of expert staff. The BRAVO study is a non-inferiority trial comparing echocardiographic optimization of atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) delay with an alternative method using non-invasive blood pressure monitoring that can be automated to consume less staff resources. METHODS/DESIGN: BRAVO is a multi-centre, randomized, cross-over, non-inferiority trial of 400 patients with a previously implanted cardiac resynchronization device. Patients are randomly allocated to six months in each arm. In the echocardiographic arm, AV delay is optimized using the iterative method and VV delay by maximizing LVOT VTI. In the haemodynamic arm AV and VV delay are optimized using non-invasive blood pressure measured using finger photoplethysmography. At the end of each six month arm, patients undergo the primary outcome measure of objective exercise capacity, quantified as peak oxygen uptake (VO2) on a cardiopulmonary exercise test. Secondary outcome measures are echocardiographic measurement of left ventricular remodelling, quality of life score and N-terminal pro B-type Natriuretic Peptide (NT-pro BNP). The study is scheduled to complete recruitment in December 2013 and to complete follow up in December 2014. DISCUSSION: If exercise capacity is non-inferior with haemodynamic optimization compared with echocardiographic optimization, it would be proof of concept that haemodynamic optimization is an acceptable alternative which has the potential to be more easily implemented. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01258829.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Whinnett et al. (2014) conducted an RCT in Chronic heart failure with cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=400). Haemodynamic optimization of AV and VV delay using non-invasive blood pressure vs. Echocardiographic optimization of AV and VV delay was evaluated on Peak oxygen uptake (VO2) on cardiopulmonary exercise testing. The BRAVO study protocol outlines a randomized crossover trial to determine if haemodynamic optimization of pacemaker settings is non-inferior to echocardiographic optimization in heart failure patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: