title: 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.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  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.
authors.affiliation: Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA. mosweeney@partners.org
authors.forename: Michael O
authors.initials: MO
authors.lastname: Sweeney
authors.forename: Kenneth A
authors.initials: KA
authors.lastname: Ellenbogen
authors.forename: Elaine Hogan
authors.initials: EH
authors.lastname: Miller
authors.forename: Lou
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Sherfesee
authors.forename: Todd
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Sheldon
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Whellan
mesh_terms: D002170:Canada / Q000453:epidemiology; D002304:Cardiac Pacing, Artificial / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D017147:Defibrillators, Implantable / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D004554:Electric Countershock / Q000401:mortality*; D005060:Europe / Q000453:epidemiology; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006333:Heart Failure / Q000401:mortality* / Q000517:prevention & control*; D006801:Humans; D007557:Israel / Q000453:epidemiology; D015337:Multicenter Studies as Topic / Q000379:methods*; D011379:Prognosis; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000379:methods*; D012107:Research Design; D018570:Risk Assessment / Q000379:methods*; D012307:Risk Factors; D014481:United States / Q000453:epidemiology