A prospective, randomized multicenter study of subjects with a high-risk of having a myocardial infarction (MI) due to acute coronary syndrome or bypass surgery. There is no differential intervention administered to the two arms of the ALERTS Study. The study evaluates whether or not a patient alarm from the Guardian System will provide benefit (e.g. shorten pre-hospital delay) compared to symptoms-only ER presentation in the event of a heart attack. An amendment to the data analysis protocol was collaboratively created by AngelMed and FDA, and was adopted by AngelMed on 4/22/2017.
There are over one million acute myocardial infarctions (AMI) each year in the United States with more than 400,000 of these resulting in death. Early identification of AMI, and prompt treatment has been shown to significantly improve clinical outcomes. Experimental and clinical studies have shown that most of the irreversible damage to the myocardium occurs during the first two hours after coronary occlusion. Milavetz et al. demonstrated that successful reperfusion therapy within two hours was associated with the greatest degree of myocardial salvage. According to Boersma, et al., restoration of flow, regardless of the method used, can abort infarction within the first 30 minutes after coronary occlusion, and the benefit of fibrinolytic therapy compared with placebo is considerably higher in patients treated within 2 hours after symptom onset than in those treated later.2 Further, evidence exists that expeditious restoration of flow in the obstructed infarct artery after the onset of symptoms in patients with the most severe type of MI, ST elevation MI (STEMI) is a key determinant of short and long-term outcomes regardless of whether reperfusion is accomplished by fibrinolysis or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Therefore, the early arrival at the hospital for a reliable diagnosis and initiation of treatment is paramount to improve the outcomes of myocardial infarction. However, despite efforts at educating the public over the past decade, the mean time from AMI symptom onset to arrival at a hospital for treatment has remained, disappointingly, at 2.5-3.0 hours. The largest proportion of the total pre-hospital delay is the interval between the onset of symptoms and the decision to seek medical treatment. Finnegan et al. described that the reasons for delay in seeking medical evaluation generally stem from patient misconceptions about symptom experience, expectations, and attribution. In many cases, patients expect the type of heart attack that they often see in movies or on television: the kind of crushing chest pain that drops a person to the ground. The reality is that many heart attacks are much "quieter," causing only mild chest pain or discomfort or other symptoms such as shortness of breath or diaphoresis. If patients would take action during the first hour following symptom onset, many lives and significant cost could be saved. It is technically possible to monitor EKGs and detect an acute infarction, even if the patient is unaware that he or she is experiencing a heart attack. However, currently available systems have limitations in the home environment. Twelve lead EKG systems require a clinically trained individual to place them. Holter monitors suffer from limitations in the ability to detect ST deviation due to low compliance and are limited in practice to 24 to 72 hours of monitoring. Systems using surface leads are all subject to noise and other artifacts from patient movement and body orientation, particularly if the patient is ambulatory. A potentially ideal solution is to implant a device that measures heart signals from inside the heart and will alert the patient when it detects electrogram characteristics set by the physician as worthy of medical evaluation.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
1,020
There is no intervention in this study. The device is a diagnostic only.
Cardiology, P.C.
Birmingham, Alabama, United States
Heart Center Research/Huntsville Hospital
Huntsville, Alabama, United States
Banner Heart Hospital
Mesa, Arizona, United States
Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Southwest Heart Group
Tucson, Arizona, United States
The primary efficacy objective is to determine that the Guardian System reduces the composite of Cardiac or unexplained death, new Q-wave MI and time to door for a confirmed occlusive event at a medical facility >2 hours.
With Amendment the primary efficacy objective was amended to be a co-primary endpoint which included A) a hypothesis test of superiority for positive predictive value of ER visits in the ALARMS\_ON group due to Guardian alerting (with or without concurrent symptoms) compared to ER visits in the ALARMS\_OFF group due to symptoms only; AND B) a hypothesis test of non-inferiority for rate of false positive ER visits in the ALARMS\_ON group due to Guardian alerting (with or without concurrent symptoms) compared to rate of false positive ER visits in the ALARMS\_OFF group due to symptoms only.
Time frame: Due to Bayesian statistical analysis, the study data will be analyzed after subject enrollment reaches 600, 900, 1200, etc. With amendment the study period spanned from December 2008 until database lock April 1, 2014.
- Reduction of the incidence of cardiac death or unexplained death during follow-up - Reduction of the incidence of "New" Q-wave myocardial infarction in one or more distributions during follow-up- Reduction of the time to door for confirmed STEMI.
With Amendment the secondary efficacy endpoint measures were amended to include Endpoint #1) a hypothesis test of superiority for rate of false positive ER visits in the ALARMS\_ON group due to Guardian alerting (with or without concurrent symptoms) compared to rate of false positive ER visits in the ALARMS\_OFF group due to symptoms only.
Time frame: Due to Bayesian statistical analysis, the study data will be analyzed after subject enrollment reaches 600, 900, 1200, etc With amendment the study period spanned from December 2008 until database lock April 1, 2014.
Secondary Endpoint #2
With Amendment the secondary efficacy endpoint measures were amended to include Endpoint #2) The number of Silent MIs, the percentage in relation to total MIs in the ALARMS ON group, and the percentage of subjects experiencing Silent MIs will be reported (no hypotheses existed for this endpoint)
Time frame: With amendment the study period spanned from December 2008 until database lock April 1, 2014.
Secondary Endpoint #3
With Amendment the secondary efficacy endpoint measures were amended to include Endpoint #3) Descriptive statistics for the median, average and distribution of symptom-to-door and alarm-to-door times for STEMI events and the number and percentage of subjects with time-to-door times of \< 2 hours will be reported for both the ALARMS ON and ALARMS OFF groups (no hypotheses existed for this endpoint).
Time frame: With amendment the study period spanned from December 2008 until database lock April 1, 2014.
Secondary Endpoint #4
With Amendment the secondary efficacy endpoint measures were amended to include Endpoint #4) The time that elapses between the initial patient prompt (alarm or symptom) and arrival at a medical facility will be calculated for all subjects who suffered a STEMI or NSTEMI, and had an associated Guardian alarm (no hypotheses existed for this endpoint).
Time frame: With amendment the study period spanned from December 2008 until database lock April 1, 2014.
Secondary Endpoint #5
With Amendment the secondary efficacy endpoint measures were amended to include Endpoint #5: The time that elapses between the initial patient prompt (Alarm or Symptom) and arrival at a medical facility will be calculated for all subjects who suffered an ACS event (STEMI, NSTEMI, or Unstable Angina), and had an associated Guardian System alarm (with or without symptoms) (no hypotheses existed for this endpoint).
Time frame: With amendment the study period spanned from December 2008 until database lock April 1, 2014.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
John Muir Clinical Research Center
Concord, California, United States
California Clinical Research Foundation
Glendale, California, United States
Long Beach Memorial Medical Center
Long Beach, California, United States
Mission Internal Medical Group
Mission Viejo, California, United States
Orange County Heart Institute and Research Center Hospital
Orange, California, United States
...and 85 more locations