Dataset Information

A phase II, sham-controlled, double-blinded study testing the safety and efficacy of the coronary sinus reducer in patients with refractory angina: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:A growing population of patients lives with severe coronary artery disease not amenable to coronary revascularization and with refractory angina despite optimal medical therapy. Percutaneous reduction of the coronary sinus is an emerging treatment for myocardial ischemia that increases coronary sinus pressure to promote a transcollateral redistribution of coronary artery in-flow from nonischemic to ischemic subendocardial territories. A first-in-man study has demonstrated that the percutaneous reduction of the coronary sinus can be performed safely in such patients. The COSIRA trial seeks to assess whether a percutaneous reduction of the coronary sinus can improve the symptoms of refractory angina in patients with limited revascularization options. METHODS/DESIGN:The COSIRA trial is a phase II double-blind, sham-controlled, randomized parallel trial comparing the percutaneously implanted coronary sinus Reducer (Neovasc Inc, Richmond, BC, Canada) to a sham implantation in 124 patients enrolled in Canada, Belgium, England, Scotland, Sweden and Denmark. All patients need to have stable Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class III or IV angina despite optimal medical therapy, with evidence of reversible ischemia related to disease in the left coronary artery, and a left ventricular ejection fraction >25%. Participants experiencing an improvement in their angina ?2 CCS classes six months after the randomization will meet the primary efficacy endpoint. The secondary objective of this trial is to test whether coronary sinus Reducer implantation will improve left ventricular ischemia, as measured by the improvement in dobutamine echocardiogram wall motion score index and in time to 1 mm ST-segment depression from baseline to six-month post-implantation. DISCUSSION:Based on previous observations, the COSIRA is expected to provide a significant positive result or an informative null result upon which rational development decisions can be based. Patient safety is a central concern and extensive monitoring should allow an appropriate investigation of the safety related to the coronary sinus Reducer. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier - NCT01205893.

SUBMITTER: Jolicœur EM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3599995 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A phase II, sham-controlled, double-blinded study testing the safety and efficacy of the coronary sinus reducer in patients with refractory angina: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Jolicœur E Marc EM Banai Shmuel S Henry Timothy D TD Schwartz Marc M Doucet Serge S White Christopher J CJ Edelman Elazer E Verheye Stefan S

Trials 20130215

<h4>Background</h4>A growing population of patients lives with severe coronary artery disease not amenable to coronary revascularization and with refractory angina despite optimal medical therapy. Percutaneous reduction of the coronary sinus is an emerging treatment for myocardial ischemia that increases coronary sinus pressure to promote a transcollateral redistribution of coronary artery in-flow from nonischemic to ischemic subendocardial territories. A first-in-man study has demonstrated that ...[more]

PMID: 23413981

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany patients with coronary artery disease who are not candidates for revascularization have refractory angina despite standard medical therapy. The balloon-expandable, stainless steel, hourglass-shaped, coronary-sinus reducing device creates a focal narrowing and increases pressure in the coronary sinus, thus redistributing blood into ischemic myocardium.MethodsWe randomly assigned 104 patients with Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class III or IV angina (on a scale from I to IV, with higher classes indicating greater limitations on physical activity owing to angina) and myocardial ischemia, who were not candidates for revascularization, to implantation of the device (treatment group) or to a sham procedure (control group). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with an improvement of at least two CCS angina classes at 6 months.ResultsA total of 35% of the patients in the treatment group (18 of 52 patients), as compared with 15% of those in the control group (8 of 52), had an improvement of at least two CCS angina classes at 6 months (P=0.02). The device was also associated with improvement of at least one CCS angina class in 71% of the patients in the treatment group (37 of 52 patients), as compared with 42% of those in the control group (22 of 52) (P=0.003). Quality of life as assessed with the use of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire was significantly improved in the treatment group, as compared with the control group (improvement on a 100-point scale, 17.6 vs. 7.6 points; P=0.03). There were no significant between-group differences in improvement in exercise time or in the mean change in the wall-motion index as assessed by means of dobutamine echocardiography. At 6 months, 1 patient in the treatment group had had a myocardial infarction; in the control group, 1 patient had died and 3 had had a myocardial infarction.ConclusionsIn this small clinical trial, implantation of the coronary-sinus reducing device was associated with significant improvement in symptoms and quality of life in patients with refractory angina who were not candidates for revascularization. (Funded by Neovasc; COSIRA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01205893.).

Project description:AimTo summarize the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and safety of coronary sinus reducing stent (CSRS) therapy in refractory angina pectoris (AP) patients.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search in common databases (n=4). The evidence obtained was summarized according to GRADE methodology. A health technology assessment (HTA) was conducted using the HTA Core Model® for Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment. Primary outcomes for the clinical effectiveness domain were the proportion of patients with improvement in two or more Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina score classes, overall mean reduction of CCS class, and Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) quality of life (QoL) score improvement. Outcomes for the safety domain were adverse device effects (ADEs) and serious adverse device effects (SADEs).ResultsOne randomized controlled trial (RCT) was identified. Outcomes that showed statistically significant differences between CSRS and sham treatment (in favor of CSRS) were CCS angina score improvement of one or two classes, overall mean reduction of CCS class, and SAQ QoL score improvement. Concerning safety, the sham-controlled trial data indicate that there were fewer SADEs in the intervention group (19%) than in the control group (46%). SADEs reported in observation studies ranged from none to 30%. The most frequently reported SADEs were death and stable angina. In the RCT, the only case of death occurred in the control group. Concerning clinical effectiveness, the risk of bias (RoB) was rated to be low, and concerning safety, the RoB was rated to range from low to moderate. As assessed by GRADE, the overall strength of evidence for effectiveness and safety was moderate. Internal and external validity of the evidence base were low.ConclusionEven though the current evidence indicates that the assessed technology, CSRS, is potentially more effective than sham intervention for refractory AP patients, the lack of internal validity of the studies undermines the partially positive results.

Project description:BackgroundRefractory angina (RA) is a chronic condition characterized by the presence of debilitating angina symptoms due to established reversible ischemia in the presence of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). Treatments for this condition have undergone major developments in recent decades; however, the treatment for RA remains a challenge for medicine. In this sense, the Coronary Sinus Reducer System (CSRS) stands as the last line of therapy for ineligible patients for revascularization with reversible ischemia. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the potential burden on the National Health Service (NHS) and measure the health effects in terms of both quantity (life years) and quality-of-life aspects related to the reducer.MethodsTwo different economic evaluation models were developed as part of the analysis. The budget impact was developed to estimate the potential burden on the NHS from incremental uptake of the use of the reducer in the target population. The utility cost analysis compares and evaluates the quality of life and health resource use and costs between the two alternatives, based on the research of Gallone et al. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was carried out to characterize the uncertainty around the parameters of the model.ResultsIn the budget impact analysis (BIA), the reducer is shown to be more expensive in the first 2 years of the model, due to the gradual uptake in the market and the cost of the device. Starting from the third year, assuming maintenance of effectiveness, there are savings in terms of resource absorption in direct healthcare costs arising from hospitalizations, emergency department accesses, coronarography, and visits avoided.ConclusionThe BIA and cost-effectiveness model show that the reducer device, despite an increase in resources absorbed in the first years of implementation and use, has the potential to result in increased quality of life in patients with RA. These costs are largely offset in the short term by the improved clinical outcomes achievable leading to savings from the third year onward in the BIA and a dominance ratio in the cost-utility analysis.

Dataset Information

A phase II, sham-controlled, double-blinded study testing the safety and efficacy of the coronary sinus reducer in patients with refractory angina: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

A phase II, sham-controlled, double-blinded study testing the safety and efficacy of the coronary sinus reducer in patients with refractory angina: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets