The Managed Ventricular pacing versus VVI 40 Pacing (MVP) Trial: clinical background, rationale, design, and implementation
- PMID: 17081208
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2006.00656.x
The Managed Ventricular pacing versus VVI 40 Pacing (MVP) Trial: clinical background, rationale, design, and implementation
Abstract
Background: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality among appropriately selected patients who have had or are at risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia. Right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing has been implicated in worsening heart failure and death. The optimal pacemaker mode for bradycardia support while minimizing unnecessary and potentially harmful RVA pacing has not been determined.
Methods: The Managed Ventricular pacing vs. VVI 40 Pacing Trial (MVP) is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, single-blind, parallel, controlled clinical trial designed to establish whether atrial-based dual-chamber managed ventricular pacing mode (MVP) is equivalent or superior to back-up only ventricular pacing (VVI 40) among patients with standard indications for ICD therapy and no indication for bradycardia pacing. The MVP Trial is designed with 80% power to detect a 10% reduction in the primary endpoint of new or worsening heart failure or all-cause mortality in the MVP-treated group. Approximately 1,000 patients at 80 centers in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, and Israel will be randomized to MVP or VVI 40 pacing after successful implantation of a dual-chamber ICD. Heart failure therapies will be optimized in accordance with evidence-based guidelines. Prespecified secondary endpoints will include ventricular arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, new indication for bradycardia pacing, health-related quality of life, and cost effectiveness. Enrollment began in October 2004 and concluded in April 2006. The study will be terminated upon recommendation of the Data Monitoring Committee or when the last patient enrolled and surviving has reached a minimum 2 years of follow-up.
Conclusion: The MVP Trial will meet the clinical need for carefully designed prospective studies to define the benefits of atrial-based dual-chamber minimal ventricular pacing versus single-chamber ventricular pacing in conventional ICD patients.
Similar articles
-
The Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) Trial: rationale, design, results, clinical implications and lessons for future trials.Card Electrophysiol Rev. 2003 Dec;7(4):468-72. doi: 10.1023/B:CEPR.0000023165.20987.b1. Card Electrophysiol Rev. 2003. PMID: 15071277 Clinical Trial.
-
Effect of pacing for soft indications on mortality and heart failure in the dual chamber and VVI implantable defibrillator (DAVID) trial.Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2008 Jul;31(7):828-37. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2008.01106.x. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2008. PMID: 18684279 Clinical Trial.
-
Managed ventricular pacing vs. conventional dual-chamber pacing for elective replacements: the PreFER MVP study: clinical background, rationale, and design.Europace. 2008 Mar;10(3):321-6. doi: 10.1093/europace/eun035. Europace. 2008. PMID: 18308753 Clinical Trial.
-
Right ventricular apical pacing: a necessary evil?Curr Opin Cardiol. 2007 Jan;22(1):33-8. doi: 10.1097/HCO.0b013e32801177f2. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2007. PMID: 17143042 Review.
-
Improvement of quality of life by means of antitachy pacing: from PainFREE to the ADVANCE-D Trial.Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2006 Dec;29 Suppl 2:S35-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2006.00488.x. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2006. PMID: 17169131 Review.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous