search
Back to results

Confirm Rx™ Versus Reveal LINQ™ - Which is More Reliable in Data Transmission? A Randomized Clinical Study

Primary Purpose

Cardiac Arrythmias, Syncope, Atrial Fibrillation

Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Abbott, Inc Confirm Rx™ versus Medtronic, Inc Reveal LINQTM
Sponsored by
Sparrow Clinical Research Institute
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional diagnostic trial for Cardiac Arrythmias focused on measuring Implantable Loop Recorder, Implantable Cardiac Monitor, Cryptogenic Stroke

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Patient is 18 years of age or older
  • Patient is willing and able to provide written informed consent
  • Patient is willing and able to comply with the protocol, including follow-up visits and MyCareLink™ and Merlin™ transmissions (standard of care)
  • Candidates for implantable cardiac monitor

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patient is enrolled in another study that could confound the results of this study, without documented pre-approval from a study manager
  • Patient has existing IPG, ICD, CRT-D or CRT-P device
  • Adequate sensing in one week post implant. If sensing not adequate, patient will be in the registry.

Sites / Locations

  • Sparrow Clinical Research Institute
  • Munson Medical Center

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Active Comparator

Active Comparator

Arm Label

Abbott, Inc Confirm Rx™

Medtronic, Inc Reveal LINQTM

Arm Description

Every other consenting subject will receive the Abbott Inc. Confirm Rx™ device.

Every other consenting subject will receive the Medtronic, Inc. Reveal LINQTM.

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Time from arrhythmic events to time of physician notification
Time from activated events to time of physician notification

Secondary Outcome Measures

Time from arrhythmic events to time of intervention if any

Full Information

First Posted
October 24, 2018
Last Updated
March 9, 2020
Sponsor
Sparrow Clinical Research Institute
Collaborators
Abbott
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT03720639
Brief Title
Confirm Rx™ Versus Reveal LINQ™ - Which is More Reliable in Data Transmission? A Randomized Clinical Study
Official Title
Confirm Rx™ Versus Reveal LINQ™ -Which is More Reliable in Data Transmission? A Randomized Clinical Study
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
March 2020
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
May 18, 2018 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
March 9, 2020 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
March 9, 2020 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
Sparrow Clinical Research Institute
Collaborators
Abbott

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
Yes
Product Manufactured in and Exported from the U.S.
No
Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
This study will compare the reliability and timeliness in data transmission of the Abbott Confirm Rx™ loop recorder with the Medtronic Reveal LINQ™ loop recorder.
Detailed Description
Implantable cardiac monitor (ICM) is an invaluable tool for diagnosing cardiac arrhythmia (1). Cryptogenic stroke, unexplained syncope and arrhythmia diagnosis are the most common indication for long term cardiac monitoring device. (2, 3). Reveal LINQTM (Medtronic, Inc.) is widely used for all of these purposes in the country. We have previously reported the use of Reveal XT in the use of atrial fibrillation (AF) surveillance in patient's post-AF ablation (2). We indicated that ICM is useful in long term monitoring of atrial arrhythmia in patients at risk of atrial fibrillation. Crystal AF (4) study also showed the importance of using ICM in detecting occult AF in patients with cryptogenic stroke in a timely manner so that appropriate treatment can be prescribed. The key to the success of ICM rest on how timely and reliable the ICM data can be transmitted to physician's office immediately after an arrhythmic events so the data can be analyzed and treatment rendered. Reveal LINQTM data transmission consists of two steps: 1. Data needs to be download into the MyCareLink™ monitor (scheduled daily at 2 am in the morning and monitor needs to be in the within 6 feet proximity of the patient) 2. MyCareLink™ monitor to be connected to the 3 G cellular network for the data transmission. (Fig 1). In cases of patient activated events, data transmission utilizes similar pathway. We have reported significant delay in data transmission in the Reveal LINQTM occurs frequently and failure to connect among the Reveal LINQTM, MyCareLink™ monitor and the cellular network is the main reason for data transmission disruption and critical data could be concealed for an extended periods. To illustrate the importance of timely transmission of patient data, a Reveal LINQTM was implanted in a 54-year-old gentle man with past medical history of recurrent syncope. On 8/12/2017 the patient developed new onset dizziness and 6 seconds sinus pause was recorded by the device. However, a connection problem of MyCarelinkTM system made data unavailable until next scheduled office visit on 11/15/2017. The physician was notified on the same day and a pacemaker was implanted on the following day, almost 3 months after his significant arrhythmic events. The newer generation of ICM such as Confirm Rx™ (Abbott, Inc) is connected directly to a patient's existing smartphone using the Bluetooth technology. By allowing patients to record and transmit symptoms with the mobile app, Confirm Rx™ ICM brings continuous remote monitoring to patients without the need for a home-based monitor (Fig 2). It is unclear which technologies offers faster and more reliable transmission of critical patient information to physician office so timely treatment can be provided. We therefore propose a pilot randomized study comparing Confirm Rx™ and Reveal LINQTM in the reliability and timeliness in data transmission.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Cardiac Arrythmias, Syncope, Atrial Fibrillation, Atrial Flutter, Tachycardia, Stroke
Keywords
Implantable Loop Recorder, Implantable Cardiac Monitor, Cryptogenic Stroke

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Diagnostic
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
209 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Abbott, Inc Confirm Rx™
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Every other consenting subject will receive the Abbott Inc. Confirm Rx™ device.
Arm Title
Medtronic, Inc Reveal LINQTM
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Every other consenting subject will receive the Medtronic, Inc. Reveal LINQTM.
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
Abbott, Inc Confirm Rx™ versus Medtronic, Inc Reveal LINQTM
Intervention Description
Comparing reliability and timeliness in data transmission between two implantable cardiac monitors.
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Time from arrhythmic events to time of physician notification
Time Frame
12 months
Title
Time from activated events to time of physician notification
Time Frame
12 months
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Time from arrhythmic events to time of intervention if any
Time Frame
12 months

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Patient is 18 years of age or older Patient is willing and able to provide written informed consent Patient is willing and able to comply with the protocol, including follow-up visits and MyCareLink™ and Merlin™ transmissions (standard of care) Candidates for implantable cardiac monitor Exclusion Criteria: Patient is enrolled in another study that could confound the results of this study, without documented pre-approval from a study manager Patient has existing IPG, ICD, CRT-D or CRT-P device Adequate sensing in one week post implant. If sensing not adequate, patient will be in the registry.
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
John H Ip, MD
Organizational Affiliation
Sparrow Hospital
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Sparrow Clinical Research Institute
City
Lansing
State/Province
Michigan
ZIP/Postal Code
48912
Country
United States
Facility Name
Munson Medical Center
City
Traverse City
State/Province
Michigan
ZIP/Postal Code
49684
Country
United States

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
No

Learn more about this trial

Confirm Rx™ Versus Reveal LINQ™ - Which is More Reliable in Data Transmission? A Randomized Clinical Study

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs