Diagnostic Electrical Cardioversion for Explaining Patient's AF and HF Symptoms

Trial statusNot yet recruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexAll
Age18+
SponsorM. Rienstra

About this trial

Rationale:

The co-existence of Atrial Fibrillation (AF) and Heart Failure (HF) is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and hospital admissions, significantly contributing to healthcare burden. Patients often experience overlapping symptoms, complicating identifying the disease primarily responsible for symptom burden. Electrical cardioversion (ECV) has been suggested to assess symptom status in sinus rhythm. However, the role of a diagnostic ECV in patients with AF and concomitant HF has not been established.

The hypothesis of this trial is that a diagnostic ECV can provide insight into AF-specific and HF-specific symptoms that can inform the physician and subsequently lead to treatment changes, as well as improve quality of life (QoL), and result changes in ejection fraction, cardiac output, and NT-proBNP levels.

Objective: To assess whether a diagnostic ECV results in more treatment changes after 3 months, compared to standard of care (no ECV).

Study design: This is an investigator initiated, randomized, open label with blinded endpoint evaluation, multi-centre, trial.

Study population: 112 patients with chronic HF and ECG confirmed persistent AF.

Trial intervention: Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either an ECV or standard of care with pharmacological rate and/or rhythm control.

Main study parameters/endpoints:

The primary outcome: total number of treatment alterations by the physician during 3 months post intervention/randomization.

Secondary outcomes: Success rate of ECV, recurrences of AF at 4 weeks, QoL changes assessed by AFEQT and KCCQ score, echocardiographic changes (left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and cardiac output (CO)), and laboratory changes (NT-proBNP) between baseline (pre-cardioversion) and 4 weeks (post-cardioversion). Whether the physician can distinguish AF from HF symptoms and whether ECV can be used as diagnostic tool.

Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit and group relatedness: Since this is a pragmatic trial, the study will be embedded within care according to current AF and HF guidelines, that includes ECV and rhythm and/or rate control, while acknowledging wide variability in local practises. The patients in the intervention arm will undergo a diagnostic ECV. Both groups will fill out questionnaires regarding QoL (baseline and 4 weeks) and have an echocardiogram at 4 weeks. A blinded endpoint committee will assess potential treatment alterations prescribed by the physician in both patient groups within 3 months. No harm is expected for this study as the intervention will be based on national guidelines.

Eligibility criteria

This trial does not accept healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

Male or female patients with age ≥ 18 years

Diagnosis of HF ≥90 days prior to screening NYHA class ≥ 2 on guideline-directed medical therapy.

ECG-confirmed AF/Atrial flutter at screening

Received oral anti-coagulants for ≥ 3 weeks (DOAC, vitamin K antagonists with an INR between 2 and 3) prior to screening

Disqualifiers

Inability to understand and sign informed consent form

Hospitalization for acute HF or worsening HF ≤ 3 months prior to screening

Heart rate during AF/ atrial flutter ≥ 110 bpm, despite optimal rate control therapy at screening

Paroxysmal or permanent AF/atrial flutter

Trial design

Design model

Parallel

Treatments tested in this trial

  • Electrical cardioversion (ECV)

    Other intervention

    Electrical cardioversion in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation and chronic heart failure

Treatment groups

112 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groups
Group A: Electrical cardioversion (ECV)Active comparator 1 intervention
Group B: Standard of Care (SoC)No intervention 0 interventions

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

Total number of treatment alterations

Total number of heart failure and/or atrial fibrillation treatment alterations by the physician

Time frame
During 3 months post intervention/randomization

Secondary outcomes

1

Success rate of the ECV

defined as ECG-confirmed sinus rhythm after ECV

Time frame
At baseline
2

Changes in Quality of Life, as assessed by the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-life Questionnaire (AFEQT) questionnaire.

Scores range from 0-100. A score of 0 corresponds to complete disability, while a score of 100 corresponds to no disability.

Time frame
Between baseline and 4 weeks
3

Changes in Quality of Life, as assessed by the The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) questionnaire

Scores range from 0-100, with lower scores corresponding with a poorer Quality of Life. 0 to 24: very poor to poor; 25 to 49: poor to fair; 50 to 74: fair to good; and 75 to 100: good to excellent.

Time frame
Between baseline and 4 weeks
4

Echocardiographic changes, measured by left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF)

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); LVEF ≤40%, Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF); LVEF 41-49%, Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF); LVEF ≥50%.

Time frame
Between baseline and 4 weeks

Other outcomes

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.

M. Rienstra

Lead sponsor

University Medical Center Groningen

Sponsor institution

Martini Hospital Groningen

Collaborator

University Medical Center Groningen

Collaborator

This trial is not recruiting at the moment. You can still explore other options: