Key result
SOLVE-CRT tests wireless endocardial LV pacing versus sham in patients failing conventional CRT.
Why the study?
Conventional CRT has a 30% non-response rate due in part to anatomical limitations in pacing location, prompting evaluation of a wireless endocardial LV pacing system in patients who failed or could not receive conventional CRT.
Does a wireless endocardial left ventricular pacing system improve LVESV and clinical composite score in patients who failed or cannot receive conventional CRT?
RCT (n=350)
Double-blind, sham-controlled
1:1
Yes
Does a wireless endocardial left ventricular pacing system improve LVESV and clinical composite score in patients who failed or cannot receive conventional CRT?
The SOLVE-CRT trial will evaluate the safety and efficacy of a wireless endocardial LV pacing system in patients who are non-responders or unable to receive conventional CRT.
May offer viable CRT alternative after conventional failure; confirms remodeling benefit versus inactive device in randomized sub-study.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves outcomes, functional capacity and quality of life in patients with heart failure. Despite two decades of experience with CRT, the rate of non-response remains approximately 30%. CRT efficacy is impacted by pacing location, which is anatomically limited in conventional systems. A new wireless endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing system allows CRT without such limitations and has shown promise in open-label studies. The purpose of this study is to evaluate its use in a patient population with poor therapeutic alternatives. METHODS: The SOLVE CRT study is an international, multi-center, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial of patients with Class I and IIa indications for CRT who have either failed to respond to or have been unable to receive conventional CRT. Enrollment will comprise 350 patients implanted with the wireless CRT system randomized 1:1 to therapy on (Treatment) or therapy off (Control) for the six-month period over which trial primary endpoints will be evaluated. The primary safety endpoint will measure the proportion of patients free from system- and procedure-related complications. Primary efficacy endpoints will assess absolute change in LV end-systolic volume LVESV, proportion of patients reducing LVESV by ≥15% and clinical composite score for Treatment versus Control patients. Primary endpoints will be evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis, though per-protocol and as-treated analysis will also be performed. CONCLUSION: SOLVE-CRT will quantify the safety and effectiveness of wireless CRT in non-responders to conventional CRT and indicated patients who have been unable to receive CRT via the usual transvenous approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Singh et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Heart failure (n=350). Wireless endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing system vs. Therapy off (sham control) was evaluated on Proportion of patients free from system- and procedure-related complications (safety); absolute change in LVESV, proportion reducing LVESV by ≥15%, and clinical composite score (efficacy). The SOLVE-CRT trial will randomize 350 patients who failed or cannot receive conventional CRT to evaluate a wireless endocardial left ventricular pacing system over 6 months.