Real-world comparison of in-hospital Reveal LINQ insertable cardiac monitor insertion inside and outside of the cardiac catheterization or electrophysiology laboratory.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) procedures have been performed in the cardiac catheterization (CATH) or electrophysiology (EP) laboratory. The introduction of the miniaturized Reveal LINQ ICM has led to simplified and less invasive procedures, affording hospitals flexibility in planning where these procedures occur without compromising patient safety or outcomes. METHODS: The present analysis of the ongoing, prospective, observational, multicenter Reveal LINQ Registry sought to provide real-world feasibility and safety data regarding the ICM procedure performed in the CATH/EP lab or operating room and to compare it with insertions performed outside of these traditional hospital settings. Patients included had at least a 30-day period after the procedure to account for any adverse events. RESULTS: We analyzed 1222 patients (58.1% male, age 61.0 ± 17.1 years) enrolled at 18 centers in the US, 17 centers in Middle East/Asia, and 15 centers in Europe. Patients were categorized into 2 cohorts according to the location of the procedure: in-lab (CATH lab, EP lab, or operating room) (n = 820, 67.1%) and out-of-lab (n = 402, 32.9%). Several differences were observed regarding baseline and procedure characteristics. However, no significant differences in the occurrence of procedure-related adverse events (AEs) were found; of 19 ICM/procedure-related AEs reported in 17 patients (1.4%), 11 occurred in the in-lab group (1.3%) and 6 in the out-of-lab group (1.5%) (P = .80). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world analysis demonstrates the feasibility of performing Reveal LINQ ICM insertion procedures outside of the traditional hospital settings without increasing the risk of infection or other adverse events.

A group sequential adaptive treatment assignment design for proof of concept and dose selection in headache trials.

The trial objective was to test whether a new mechanism of action would effectively treat migraine headaches and to select a dose range for further investigation. The motivation for a group sequential, adaptive, placebo-controlled trial design was (1) limited information about where across the range of seven doses to focus attention, (2) a need to limit sample size for a complicated inpatient treatment and (3) a desire to reduce exposure of patients to ineffective treatment. A design based on group sequential and up and down designs was developed and operational characteristics were explored by trial simulation. The primary outcome was headache response at 2 h after treatment. Groups of four treated and two placebo patients were assigned to one dose. Adaptive dose selection was based on response rates of 60% seen with other migraine treatments. If more than 60% of treated patients responded, then the next dose was the next lower dose; otherwise, the dose was increased. A stopping rule of at least five groups at the target dose and at least four groups at that dose with more than 60% response was developed to ensure that a selected dose would be statistically significantly (p=0.05) superior to placebo. Simulations indicated good characteristics in terms of control of type 1 error, sufficient power, modest expected sample size and modest bias in estimation. The trial design is attractive for phase 2 clinical trials when response is acute and simple, ideally binary, placebo comparator is required, and patient accrual is relatively slow allowing for the collection and processing of results as a basis for the adaptive assignment of patients to dose groups. The acute migraine trial based on this design was successful in both proof of concept and dose range selection.