Now Available for Public Comment: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for FDAAA 801 and NIH Draft Reporting Policy for NIH-Funded Trials

Stress Echo Ultrasound Contrast in an Urban Safety Net Hospital to Refine Ischemia Evaluation (SECURE)

This study is ongoing, but not recruiting participants.
Sponsor:
Collaborator:
General Electric
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Mori Krantz, Denver Health and Hospital Authority
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT01572220
First received: April 3, 2012
Last updated: September 18, 2014
Last verified: September 2014

April 3, 2012
September 18, 2014
April 2012
August 2014   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Rate of non-diagnostic tests between ultrasound contrast enhanced stress echocardiography and myocardial SPECT [ Time Frame: Within 5 days of stress imaging ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
Non-diagnostic test rates will be the principal outcome of interest and are defined as those studies that do not allow a clinical decision for patient disposition (alternative non-invasive modality ordered, imaging inadequate to exclude ischemia, target heart rate not achieved, adverse side effects and test was terminated, discharge, further invasive testing such as coronary angiography) or require cardiology consultation for further evaluation.
Same as current
Complete list of historical versions of study NCT01572220 on ClinicalTrials.gov Archive Site
  • Similarity in rates of cardiac catheterization and acute coronary syndrome events between UCA stress echocardiography and myocardial SPECT [ Time Frame: by 30 +/- 7 days post-discharge ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    • 30-day rates of cardiac catheterization between the two imaging modalities
    • Difference in the 30-day composite rate of acute coronary syndrome re-hospitalization, revascularization, and death between the two imaging modalities
    • Similarity in positive predictive value (PPV) of the two imaging modalities
    • Inter-rater reliability estimates for non-diagnostic echocardiogram studies
  • Shorter length of stay and lower cost of inpatient hospital care for UCA stress echocardiography than for myocardial SPECT [ Time Frame: 30 day assesment ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    • Length of inpatient hospital stay of UCA stress echocardiography versus myocardial SPECT
    • Difference in time-to-cardiac catheterization beginning from time of admission
    • Differences in time-to-stress test completion beginning from time of admission30-day hospital costs of UCA stress echocardiography versus myocardial SPECT
  • Greater physician satisfaction when using UCA stress echocardiography than for myocardial SPECT [ Time Frame: 5 days ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    •Physician satisfaction as assessed on questionnaire with UCA stress echocardiography versus myocardial SPECT. Physician(s) will be the provider(s) who supervised patient care during inpatient hospital stay.
Same as current
Not Provided
Not Provided
 
Stress Echo Ultrasound Contrast in an Urban Safety Net Hospital to Refine Ischemia Evaluation
Stress Echo Ultrasound Contrast in an Urban Safety Net Hospital to Refine Ischemia Evaluation

The current study is designed to have broad generalizability and inform a potential shift toward greater utilization of stress echocardiography with UCA. This will be accomplished by comparing UCA stress echocardiography with myocardial SPECT among hospitalized patients presenting with atraumatic chest pain. This study seeks to demonstrate: clinical comparability of the 2 modalities (based on non-diagnostic test rates), improved care efficiency (based on length of stay), lower costs, improved provider satisfaction, and a presumed improved safety profile through the elimination of radiation exposure.

Primary Hypothesis: A strategy of routine UCA (Optison™) enhanced stress echocardiography will result in a clinically non-diagnostic test rate comparable to myocardial SPECT among patients hospitalized (inpatient or hospital observation status) with atraumatic chest pain.

Not Provided
Interventional
Not Provided
Allocation: Randomized
Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Open Label
Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
  • Chest Pain
  • Symptomatic Ischemic Equivalent
Other: UCA stress echocardiography or myocardial SPECT
Comparative Effectiveness of cardiac stress imaging modalities
  • stress echocardiography
    Comparative effectiveness
    Intervention: Other: UCA stress echocardiography or myocardial SPECT
  • Myocardial SPECT
    CER
    Intervention: Other: UCA stress echocardiography or myocardial SPECT

*   Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
 
Active, not recruiting
240
February 2015
August 2014   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Patients must meet all of the following inclusion criteria to be eligible for participation in this study:

    1. Males or females aged ≥ 18 years
    2. Evaluated for symptoms of chest discomfort or ischemic equivalent
    3. Clinical indication for stress imaging, defined as one of the following clinical risk estimates for CAD based upon the Diamond and Forrester classification7:

      • Intermediate pretest probability of CAD and electrocardiogram (ECG) is clinically interpretable and patient is able to exercise
      • Intermediate pretest probability of CAD and ECG is clinically interpretable or patient is unable to exercise
      • High pretest probability of CAD regardless of ECG interpretability and ability to exercise
    4. Willing and able to provide written informed consent to participate in this study
    5. Agrees to remain under observation (e.g., inpatient or observational status) until all study procedures from the hospital stay are completed, and to complete a 30-day follow up call

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients who meet any of the following exclusion criteria are not to be enrolled in this study:

    1. Documented medical history or discovery during screening and/or admission of any of the following:

      • Severe aortic or mitral stenosis
      • Significant resting left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (velocity > 3 cm/s)
      • Mobile left ventricular apical thrombus
      • Acute pericarditis or pericardial tamponade
      • Ascending or thoracic aortic aneurysm that is not stable or meets surgical criteria
      • Acute decompensated congestive heart failure
      • Established severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction < 35%)
    2. Definite acute coronary syndrome (e.g., unstable angina, acute myocardial infarction) as confirmed by elevated Troponin I (>0.6 ng/L) on two successive measurements or ECG changes diagnostic for unstable angina (e.g. localized ST changes) in conjunction with clinical appraisal
    3. Any of the following other abnormalities on the ECG at screening:

      • Paced ventricular rhythm or complete left bundle branch block
      • Uncontrolled arrhythmias defined by frequent premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) > 10/minute, non-sustained ventricular tachycardia, or atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response
      • 2nd or 3rd degree heart block
    4. Uncontrolled hypertension defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 200 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 110 mmHg at screening
    5. Hemoglobin (Hb) < 7.5 mg/dL at screening or within 3 months prior to screening
    6. Potassium < 3.0 mmol/L or > 5.5 mmol/L or severe electrolyte abnormality at screening that, in the opinion of the supervising physician or Investigator, makes stress testing unsafe
    7. Females who are pregnant or nursing
    8. Known intolerance to any of the study stress agents (dipyridamole, dobutamine) or study cardiac imaging agents (Optison, Cardiolite)
    9. Weight ≥ 350lbs
    10. Any physical or psychological condition that, in the opinion of the Investigator, may adversely affect the safety of the patient if enrolled in this trial.
Both
18 Years and older
No
Contact information is only displayed when the study is recruiting subjects
United States
 
NCT01572220
12-0009
No
Mori Krantz, Denver Health and Hospital Authority
Denver Health and Hospital Authority
General Electric
Principal Investigator: Mori Krantz, MD FACC FACP Denver Health Medical Center
Denver Health and Hospital Authority
September 2014

ICMJE     Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP