Clinical Research Directory

Cohort Study - SBRT for VT Radioablation

Ventricular tachycardia (VT) contributes to over 350,000 sudden deaths each year in the US. Malignant VTs involve an electrical "short circuit" in the heart, formed by narrow channels of surviving tissue inside myocardial scar. Current treatment for VT consists of either implantable defibrillators (ICDs), suppressive drug therapy, catheter ablation or a combination of all 3. Implantable Defibrillators (ICDs) reduce sudden death and can terminate some ventricular tachycardia (VT) without shocks, but they don't prevent VT. The occurrence of ≥1 ICD shock is associated with reductions in mental well-being and physical functioning, and increases in anxiety and sometimes depression. Further, ICD shocks have been consistently associated with adverse outcomes, including heart failure and death. Furthermore, the most important predictor of ICD shocks is a history of prior ICD shocks. Therapies to suppress VT include antiarrhythmic drug therapy and catheter ablation, neither however is universally effective. When VT recurs despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy and catheter ablation, novel yet invasive, approaches may be required. Such invasive procedures carry consequent risks of cardiac and extra-cardiac injury. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a non-invasive technique that delivers high doses of radiation precisely to specified regions in the body, while minimizing exposure to adjacent tissue. This technique is currently, and commonly used in the treatment of cancer. Conventional application of SBRT has made use of its ability to spare non-target tissue, including for treatment of tumors near the heart. More recently, clinicians have changed the paradigm, by focusing radioablative energy on ventricular scar responsible for ventricular tachycardia. Pre-clinical studies have supported the concept and were followed by first-in-human VT therapeutic experience in 2017. Subsequent studies have had encouraging results for patients who failed or were unable to tolerate conventional treatment.

Catheter Ablation Versus Anti-arrhythmic Drugs for Ventricular Tachycardia

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) due to recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) is an important clinical sequela in patients with structural heart disease. VT generally occurs as a result of electrical re-entry in the presence of arrhythmogenic substrate (scar). Scar tissue forms due to an ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) from prior coronary obstructive disease or a non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) from an inflammatory or genetic disease. AADs can reduce VT recurrence, but have significant limitations in treatment of VT. For example, amiodarone has high rates of side effects/toxicities and a finite effective usage before recurrence. ICDs prevent cardiac arrest and sudden death from VT, but do not stop VT occurring. Recurrent VT and ICD therapies decrease QOL, increase hospital visits, mortality, morbidity and risk of death. Improvement in techniques for mapping and ablation of VT have made CA an alternative. Currently, there is limited evidence to guide clinicians either toward AAD therapy or CA in patients with NICM. This data shows significant benefit of CA over medical therapy in terms of VT free survival, survival free of VT storm and VT burden. Observational studies suggest that CA is effective in eliminating VT in NICM patients who have failed AADs, resulting in reduction of VT burden and AAD use over long term follow up. Furthermore, there is limited data on the efficacy of CA in early ICM with VT, or advanced ICM with VT. RCT data is almost exclusively on patients with modest ICM with VT, and this is not representative of the real-world scenario of patients with structural heart disease presenting with VT. Therefore the primary objective is to determine in all patients with structural heart disease and spontaneous or inducible VT, if catheter ablation compared to standard medical therapy with anti-arrhythmic drugs results in a reduction of a composite endpoint of recurrent VT, VT storm and death at a median follow up of 18 months.

ENVISION IDE Trial: Safety and Effectiveness of NAVITOR in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

The objective of ENVISION is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Navitor Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) System for treating patients with symptomatic, severe native aortic stenosis who are considered intermediate or low risk for surgical mortality. The trial will also evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Navitor TAVI System in a valve-in-valve (ViV) application in patients with symptomatic heart disease due to failure of a surgical or transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valve who are at high or greater surgical risk.