Study Stopped
The study was stopped prematurely due to insufficient recruitment
Comparison of Standard Treatment Versus Standard Treatment Plus Extracorporeal Life Support (ECLS) in Myocardial Infarction Complicated With Cardiogenic Shock
National Multicenter Randomized Trial, Comparing Two Treatments of Myocardial Infarction Complicated With Cardiogenic Shock: Standard Treatment vs Standard Treatment Plus ECLS (Extracorporeal Life Support)
1 other identifier
interventional
19
1 country
13
Brief Summary
Cardiogenic shock is currently the main cause of death after myocardial infarction and 50% of deaths occur within the first 48 hours. To limit the extent of the myocardial necrosis is the primary objective of the treatment in this context. The symptomatic treatment of the ventricular failure alone does not allow a reduction of mortality. The immediate prognosis is not significantly improved by the current standard of care, including early revascularisation and intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. In order to improve the immediate prognosis, it seems necessary to limit the irreversible myocardial lesions and the systemic inflammatory response induced by an extended myocardial infarction (complement activation, cytokines production, iNOS expression, etc.). These objectives may be reached by a more extended utilization and availability of circulatory assistance methods. The investigators propose to compare, in a randomised multicenter study, two treatments of the myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock among 44 patients: Standard Treatment versus ECLS-Impella +/- standard treatment. In June 2007, an amendment replaced the device ECMO by the use of Impella intra-thoracic pump. This amendment has been approved by the Ethic Committee on July 7, 2007. In March 2009, a new amendment has been approved by the EC. This amendment allowed to revise the number of patients to enroll (reduced to 44) and this lead us to modify also the primary endpoint : variation of BNP levels between H0 and H24 (H0 defined as the nearest value of BNP level obtained before the randomization).Showing a more important BNP levels decrease in the experimental group compared to standard treatment group, the investigators obtain an indirect argument to show a superior efficacy of the tested strategy.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at below P25 for phase_4
Started Jun 2005
Longer than P75 for phase_4
13 active sites
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
Study Start
First participant enrolled
June 1, 2005
CompletedFirst Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
April 13, 2006
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
April 17, 2006
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
October 1, 2009
CompletedAugust 2, 2010
July 1, 2010
April 13, 2006
July 30, 2010
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (1)
Variation of BNP levels between H0 and H24 (Ho is defined as the nearest value of BNP level before the randomization).
one month
Secondary Outcomes (14)
BNP levels measured at H6, H12, H48 and H72.
one month
BNP level measured at H48 after assistance weaning.
one month
haemoglobin levels
one month
lactate levels
one month
creatinine levels
one month
- +9 more secondary outcomes
Study Arms (2)
Control
NO INTERVENTIONIABP, inotropic drugs, antiplatelet agents according to site habits.
Experimental
EXPERIMENTALECLS +/- IABP, inotropic drugs, antiplatelet agents according to site habits.
Interventions
Percutaneous implantation of Impella pump for a duration of 3 days as a minimum and up to 7 days (recommended)
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- Acute myocardial infarction complicated with cardiogenic shock
- Patient without contraindication to IABP or ECLS-Impella
You may not qualify if:
- Patient with refractory cardiogenic shock
- Reperfusion \> 24 hours after the pain begins
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
Study Sites (13)
Brest University Hospital
Brest, 29000, France
Caen University Hospital
Caen, 14000, France
Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital
Clermont-Ferrand, 63000, France
Hôpital de la Croix Rousse
Lyon, 69317, France
Hôpital de la Timone
Marseille, 13008, France
Paris Sud Cardiovascular Institute
Massy, France
Mulhouse Hospital
Mulhouse, 68000, France
Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital
Paris, 75013, France
Cochin Hospital
Paris, France
Hôpital Haut-Lévèque
Pessac, 33604, France
Hôpital Charles Nicolle
Rouen, France
Centre Cardiologique du Nord
Saint-Denis, 93207, France
Toulouse University Hospital
Toulouse, 31000, France
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Study Officials
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Massimo Massetti, MD
University Hospital, Caen
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Rémi Sabatier, MD
University Hospital, Caen
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- phase 4
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- NONE
- Purpose
- TREATMENT
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
April 13, 2006
First Posted
April 17, 2006
Study Start
June 1, 2005
Study Completion
October 1, 2009
Last Updated
August 2, 2010
Record last verified: 2010-07