Key result
The RESPOND CRT trial is designed to randomize 876 patients with heart failure to evaluate whether SonR automatic optimization is non-inferior to echocardiographic optimization at 12 months.
Why the study?
Does SonR CRT optimization improve the proportion of responders compared to echocardiographic optimization in patients with heart failure eligible for a CRT-D device?
RCT (n=876)
Double-blind
2:1
Does SonR CRT optimization improve the proportion of responders compared to echocardiographic optimization in patients with heart failure eligible for a CRT-D device?
The RESPOND CRT trial is designed to evaluate whether automatic optimization of CRT using the SonR algorithm improves clinical response compared to echocardiographic optimization in heart failure patients.
SonR weekly AV/VV optimization may boost CRT response; leaves open whether accelerometer-driven automation improves outcomes versus usual care in RCTs.
Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is effective in most patients with heart failure (HF) and ventricular dyssynchrony, a significant minority of patients (approximately 30%) are non-responders. Optimal atrioventricular and interventricular delays often change over time and reprogramming these intervals might increase CRT effectiveness. The SonR algorithm automatically optimizes atrioventricular and interventricular intervals each week using an accelerometer to measure change in the SonR signal, which was shown previously to correlate with hemodynamic improvement (left ventricular [LV] dP/dtmax). The RESPOND CRT trial will evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the SonR optimization system in patients with HF New York Heart Association class III or ambulatory IV eligible for a CRT-D device. Enrolled patients will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to either SonR CRT optimization or to a control arm employing echocardiographic optimization. All patients will be followed for at least 24 months in a double-blinded fashion. The primary effectiveness end point will be evaluated for non-inferiority, with a nested test of superiority, based on the proportion of responders (defined as alive, free from HF-related events, with improvements in New York Heart Association class or improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire quality of life score) at 12 months. The required sample size is 876 patients. The two primary safety end points are acute and chronic SonR lead-related complication rates, respectively. Secondary end points include proportion of patients free from death or HF hospitalization, proportion of patients worsened, and lead electrical performance, assessed at 12 months. The RESPOND CRT trial will also examine associated reverse remodeling at 1 year.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brugada et al. (2013) conducted an RCT in Heart failure (n=876). SonR CRT optimization vs. Echocardiographic optimization was evaluated on Proportion of responders (alive, free from HF-related events, with improvements in NYHA class or KCCQ score) at 12 months. The RESPOND CRT trial is designed to randomize 876 patients with heart failure to evaluate whether SonR automatic optimization is non-inferior to echocardiographic optimization at 12 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: