The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the ACP in subjects with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation by demonstrating that the device is non-inferior to optimal medical therapy (OMT) with respect to the primary effectiveness endpoint and superior to OMT with respect to primary safety endpoint.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
97
AMPLATZER Cardiac Plug is a percutaneous transcatheter device
Good Samaritan Hospital
Los Angeles, California, United States
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
Los Angeles, California, United States
Acute Safety - Procedure Related SAEs From Randomization Through Discharge For Device Arm Only
An analysis comparing the rate of procedure related serious adverse events that occur in the device arm to a performance goal determined from literature reported rates for similar procedural techniques. The study as designed was intended to determine the difference in efficacy and safety between the device and control arm (subjects treated with OMT). However, due to early enrollment closure, the three primary endpoints were not analyzed as specified in the original trial protocol. As the Control arm subjects exited the study early, no sufficient data was available to summarize any endpoints. The three primary endpoints as mentioned in the Appendix D of the clinical investigational plan (Revision 06, dated September 2014) were summarized for the Device arm below. The secondary endpoint analysis requirement was removed from the protocol.
Time frame: From Randomization to Discharge Visit
Long-term Safety - Device Arm Only
All-Cause Mortality and Major Bleeds Through 2 years in device arm subjects only. The study as designed was intended to determine the difference in efficacy and safety between the device and control arm (subjects treated with OMT). However, due to early enrollment closure, the three primary endpoints were not analyzed as specified in the original trial protocol. As the Control arm subjects exited the study early, no sufficient data was available to summarize any endpoints. The three primary endpoints as mentioned in the Appendix D of the clinical investigational plan (Revision 06, dated September 2014) were summarized for the Device arm. The secondary endpoint analysis requirement was removed from the protocol.
Time frame: Randomization to 2 year follow-up
Effectiveness Endpoint - Device Arm Only
Occurrence of ischemic stroke and peripheral thromboembolism in the device arm. The study as designed was intended to determine the difference in efficacy and safety between the device and control arm (subjects treated with OMT). However, due to early enrollment closure, the three primary endpoints were not analyzed as specified in the original trial protocol. As the Control arm subjects exited the study early, no sufficient data was available to summarize any endpoints. The three primary endpoints as mentioned in the Appendix D of the clinical investigational plan (Revision 06, dated September 2014) were summarized for the Device arm. The secondary endpoint analysis requirement was removed from the protocol.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
University of Colorado Denver
Aurora, Colorado, United States
South Denver Cardiology Associates
Littleton, Colorado, United States
Emory Midtown Hospital and Emory University Hospital
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
St. Joseph's Hospital and Research Institute
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics
Iowa City, Iowa, United States
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky, United States
Henry Ford Hospital
Detroit, Michigan, United States
Spectrum Health
Grand Rapids, Michigan, United States
...and 8 more locations
Time frame: Randomization through 2 year follow up