A Randomized Trial of Lenient Versus Strict Arm Instruction Post Cardiac Device Surgery - LENIENT
Overview
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Intervention
- Not specified
- Conditions
- Post-Op Complication
- Sponsor
- Ottawa Heart Institute Research Corporation
- Enrollment
- 6300
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- A composite of 1) Lead dislodgement 2) Frozen shoulder 3) Upper arm venous thrombosis 4) Clinically significant hematoma formation
- Status
- Recruiting
- Last Updated
- 4 months ago
Overview
Brief Summary
The purpose and objectives of this study is to investigate whether reducing the existing arm restrictions on patients who receive Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices (CIED) will result in an improved patient experience post operatively and reduce complication rates. There are multiple and varied arm restriction instructions given to patients receiving CIED's with limited universally accepted protocols or advice on restrictions for patients following surgery.
Restrictions such as arm immobilization, showering and weight lifting, in addition to contradictory advice between various hospitals and physicians, can negatively affect patient quality of life and increase patient anxiety with no current evidence for benefit. A cluster cross over randomized trial has been designed to test the comparative effectiveness of lenient vs strict arm restrictions for all patients receiving implantable devices.
Instructions within both arms of this study are considered within reasonable practice in Canada.
All arm restriction instructions and parameters will be embedded within EPIC, nurses will teach the restriction in addition they will be provide to the patients via printed EPIC discharge summaries. Further links will be embedded in the After Visit Summary (AFS) printouts and my Chart for patients in EPIC. These instructions will be changed every 8 months, as per the crossover design of the trial. Additionally, both arms will utilize interactive voice recognition (IVR) to provide patients with further reminders and instruction on arm restrictions.
All patients are given standard of care instructions for follow up and complication assessment through the investigators' device clinic and 24/7 on call nursing program.
Detailed Description
The purpose and objectives of this study is to investigate whether reducing the existing restrictions on patients post CIED will result in an improved patient experience post operatively and reduce complication rates. Results from this study will create standardized, postoperative arm restriction recommendations more uniform between various hospitals. Hypothesis: The investigators hypothesize that outcomes of the post CIED implanted patients given lenient arm restriction will be non-inferior to those with prolonged arm restriction at reducing a combined primary endpoint of lead dislodgement, device infection, clinically significant pocket hematoma, upper limb DVT and frozen shoulder. Clinical relevance: The investigators anticipate that patients with minimal (lenient) arm restriction will have similar postoperative complication rates compared to the prolonged arm restriction. Should this hypothesis be proven, this will greatly improve patient quality of life post CIED with less stringent restrictions.
Investigators
David Birnie
Deputy Chief, Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute
Ottawa Heart Institute Research Corporation
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
- •all patients undergoing device surgery which includes implantation of at least one new endovascular lead
Exclusion Criteria
- •Standalone CIED generator replacement
- •Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators
- •Leadless endocardial pacemakers
- •Temporary permanent pacemakers
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
A composite of 1) Lead dislodgement 2) Frozen shoulder 3) Upper arm venous thrombosis 4) Clinically significant hematoma formation
Time Frame: 1 year
Definitions of each component of primary outcome: 1. Lead dislodgement; dislodgment requiring surgical repair and dislodgement not occurring in the immediate post-op period (i.e., before the randomized intervention begins). Immediate post-op period is defined as from pocket closure to dislodgement suspected on first post- operative CXR (which is done 2-4hrs post-op). 2. Frozen shoulder in this study is defined as: Nursing or physician note mention of chronologically related (to index surgery) patient complaint of new or markedly worsened shoulder pain and/or restricted and stiffness of active and passive range of motion. 3. Upper arm venous thrombosis. 4. Clinically significant hematoma is defined as done in BRUISE CONTROL 2 trial: a hematoma that required re-operation and/or resulted in prolongation of hospitalization and/or required interruption of oral anticoagulation.
Secondary Outcomes
- Rate of hematoma(1 year)
- Rate of lead dislodgement(1 year)
- Rate of frozen shoulder(1 year)