4.5 Article

Design of the remede System Pivotal Trial: A Prospective, Randomized Study in the Use of Respiratory Rhythm Management to Treat Central Sleep Apnea

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIAC FAILURE
Volume 21, Issue 11, Pages 892-902

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE INC MEDICAL PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2015.08.344

Keywords

Central sleep apnea; phrenic nerve stimulation; sleep; randomized controlled trial

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Central sleep apnea is common in patients with cardiovascular disease and worsens outcomes. There is a lack of established therapies for central sleep apnea, and those available are limited by poor patient adherence and potentially adverse cardiovascular effects, at least in a subset of patients. The remede System (Respicardia, Minnetonka, Minnesota) is a new physiologic treatment that uses transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation to contract the diaphragm, thereby stabilizing gas exchange and restoring normal breathing throughout the sleep period. Methods: This is a prospective multicenter randomized trial with blinded end points evaluating the safety and efficacy of the remede System. Up to 173 patients with central sleep apnea will be randomized 1:1 to remede System therapy initiated at 1 month after implantation (treatment) or to an implanted remede System that will remain inactive for 6 months (control). Primary efficacy end point is the percentage of patients who experience a reduction in apnea-hypopnea index by a >= 50% at 6 months (responder analysis). Primary safety end point is freedom from serious adverse events through 12 months. Secondary end points include sleep-disordered breathing parameters, sleep architecture, Epworth Sleepiness Scale score, and Patient Global Assessment. Conclusions: This is the 1st randomized controlled trial of the safety and efficacy of the remede System for the treatment of central sleep apnea.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available